Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Watanabe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_Inácio_Lula_da_Silva#Education_and_work

Can't see anything about his knowledge about European and Swedish law in that. Has he showed what sources he uses to base his opinion on? I mean - the article you linked to isn't even factually correct - JA is not in prison for example, nor are his rights to express himself limited.


Maybe you could tell me - who are in your opinion involved the conspiracy that is behind the accusations about rape and sexual coercion? What I'm after is a list of the people/groups you think are in on it.

If you don't know yourself, maybe you can point me to someone that actually has a description of who they believe are involved.

I was quoting the opinion of former President Lula.
If you do not want to consider it, this is OK

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-brazil-s-solidarity-with-jailed-founder.html

 

[Watanabe]

Really? What does the U.S. have to gain by putting Assange in prison for life?

Show other people who want to leak condifential info what will happen to them.
Strike one to educate one hundred

As near as I can tell, he didn't break any U.S. laws.

Where is this a problem? Guntanamo?

 

[PhantomWolf]

‘Does anyone seriously think this is about a broken condom?’

Sadly a lot of people do seem to seriously think that. Anyone that has actually studied the case knows that it actually has nothing at all to do with a ripped condom, it has to do with Assange having sexual relations with a woman who was not in a condition to consent and who had previously expressed to him that she did not consent to the manner in which he started those relations. That is what the case is about.

 

[Watanabe]

Sadly a lot of people do seem to seriously think that. Anyone that has actually studied the case knows that it actually has nothing at all to do with a ripped condom, it has to do with Assange having sexual relations with a woman who was not in a condition to consent and who had previously expressed to him that she did not consent to the manner in which he started those relations. That is what the case is about.

So Queen` s Counsel Julian Burnside is a terrorist or maybe he is paid by AlQaeda?

 

[Watanabe]

Really? What does the U.S. have to gain by putting Assange in prison for life? As near as I can tell, he didn't break any U.S. laws.

Who said that breaking U.S. laws is the problem and since when the U.S. Government is so much interested in due process for people who cause damage to them? Guantanamo?

Yes. Lula has an opinion. As an opinion, it's no worse and no better than anyone's.

Really?
You consider your own opinion as authoritative as the former President of one of the bigget economies of the world?

As far as I know, he wasn't in the room with Assange and the women. The position that his opinion is somehow evidence for something other than his having an opinion, though, is propaganda, an appeal to false authority.

So what?
Even if there were a trial, the judge would ot have been in the room either

I think of him as balance for the U.S. political blowhards who think Assange should be severely punished even though he hasn't so far been shown to have broken U.S. law.

He should be prosecuted if there is no legitimate suspect of political prosecution

I can't blame the South American countries for not wanting to have their embassies broken into. The UK's threatening that was a bad idea. But by the same token, the privilege of having an enclave considered sovereign in the midst of another country carries with it the responsibility of not letting that privilege be abused. Sheltering Assange from an actual attempt to extradite him to the U.S. to face politically motivated would be a legitimate use. Sheltering Assange from extradition to Sweden to face the allegations there isn't.

Then your position is not any different from the Chinese or other Governments who prosecute their own dissidents.

I suppose you could call the evidence presented that Assange has broken laws of Sweden, (and now, of course, laws of the UK), and that being extradited to Sweden would actually make his extradition to the U.S. more complicated, propaganda. But it's factually based. There's no appeal to emotion in it. There's an appeal to the authority of the Swedish laws and constitution, but that's not false authority. They really do run things that way there.

Please prove it.
Not quoting this or that law.

 

[trustbutverify]

On which grounds is former Brazilian President Lula` s opinion "propaganda" and the sources quoted in favour of Assange` s prosecution for rape "not propaganda"?

On the grounds that his "opinion" is a political tool, having nothing to do with the facts of the case. Had Assange's organization gotten famous publicizing information stolen from, and intended to damage, Brazil- Lula's "opinion" would have been the opposite. In other words... propaganda.

 

[Wudang]

Please prove it.
Not quoting this or that law.

These two statements are contradictory.

 

[TjW]

Who said that breaking U.S. laws is the problem and since when the U.S. Government is so much interested in due process for people who cause damage to them? Guantanamo?

Really?
You consider your own opinion as authoritative as the former President of one of the bigget economies of the world?

So what?
Even if there were a trial, the judge would ot have been in the room either

He should be prosecuted if there is no legitimate suspect of political prosecution

Then your position is not any different from the Chinese or other Governments who prosecute their own dissidents.

Please prove it.
Not quoting this or that law.

While not everyone in the U.S. agrees with the interpretation and application of the laws used to create Guantanamo, there nevertheless were laws in place already. You could argue that it's not right, but once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on it, it is legal. You can disagree with the law, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

There are subjects on which I believe my opinion to be far superior to Lula's. I expect his opinion on hang glider flying qualities would be completely worthless. As would be mine on the experience of running Brazil.

Neither of those topics has anything to do with Swedish law, or what actually occurred between Assange and the women, so I expect our opinions on those particular subjects are about equal.

It's true that the judge would not have been in the same room. But he would be presented with actual evidence as to the sequence of events, and he is a legitimate authority on what sorts of behavior violate Swedish law, and what level of evidence is required to show the law has been violated. Neither Lula, nor you, nor I have those advantages.
And actually, had Lula been in the room with Assange and the women, he still would not be in a position to say if Assange had broken Swedish law or not, because he's not an expert on Swedish law. The judge, however, is.

Legitimate suspicion would involve actual verifiable evidence beyond simple assertion that the prosecution is primarily political.
Got any?

This is quite a jump. From essentially, "Someone should be shielded when there is evidence of political prosecution, but not if there isn't" how do you get to your conclusion that I support the Chinese prosecution of their dissidents?
Because it seems to me that this is pretty much the opposite of what I said.

Gosh. That's a real stopper. Having to prove that the Swedes follow their own laws without showing that they have laws.
However, I'm not going to try, since I'm not an expert on Swedish law, don't have any great interest in becoming one, and don't believe I could reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into in the first place.
The perception by non-Swedish legal experts of the Swedish justice system is that it is one of the least corrupt and least politically influenced. There is evidence against Sweden bowing to U.S. political pressure in the form of past cases in which Sweden refused to extradite people to the U.S. for what they considered to be political charges. Without evidence to the contrary for this particular case, I'm going to go with the conclusion that it's probably not politically motivated.
I'm certainly willing to reconsider if you present evidence to the contrary, but lack of evidence for a conspiracy is not evidence for a conspiracy.

 

[Watanabe]

These two statements are contradictory.

Contradictory?
Please prove that Assange can not be extradited to the US.
If you think that a ,aw would prove that, please provide evicdence that that law can not be overturned, overlooked, simply ignored as it happens all the times

 

[Watanabe]

On the grounds that his "opinion" is a political tool, having nothing to do with the facts of the case. Had Assange's organization gotten famous publicizing information stolen from, and intended to damage, Brazil- Lula's "opinion" would have been the opposite. In other words... propaganda.

When former President Lula, who is neither citizen of Sweden, Australia or the US claims his opinion he is doing propaganda.
When the Victoria Nuland claims that the US is not after Assange she is not doing propaganda.
It is amazing to the most how people blindly believe twhat their governments tell them.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So Queen` s Counsel Julian Burnside is a terrorist or maybe he is paid by AlQaeda?

If you plan to respond, at least try and make sense.

Here's a simple question for you.

If a woman tells a man that she will not have sex with him in a particular way and the man then waits until she is incapable of saying no again and proceeds to start having sex with her in the way she previous stated multiple times was unacceptable to her, is that rape?

 

[Watanabe]

While not everyone in the U.S. agrees with the interpretation and application of the laws used to create Guantanamo, there nevertheless were laws in place already. You could argue that it's not right, but once the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on it, it is legal. You can disagree with the law, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

What is the difference of having a law and circumventing with another sentence and not having the law at all?

There are subjects on which I believe my opinion to be far superior to Lula's. I expect his opinion on hang glider flying qualities would be completely worthless. As would be mine on the experience of running Brazil.

Neither of those topics has anything to do with Swedish law, or what actually occurred between Assange and the women, so I expect our opinions on those particular subjects are about equal.

The point that you are failing to grasp is that allegedly the Swedish laws have nothing to do with Assange` s case

It's true that the judge would not have been in the same room. But he would be presented with actual evidence as to the sequence of events, and he is a legitimate authority on what sorts of behavior violate Swedish law, and what level of evidence is required to show the law has been violated. Neither Lula, nor you, nor I have those advantages.

Assuming that the whole prosecution is not politically motivated

And actually, had Lula been in the room with Assange and the women, he still would not be in a position to say if Assange had broken Swedish law or not, because he's not an expert on Swedish law. The judge, however, is.

Assuming that the whole prosecution is not politically motivated

Legitimate suspicion would involve actual verifiable evidence beyond simple assertion that the prosecution is primarily political.
Got any?

Lots of.
Were the US marines found killing civilians from a chopper been prosecuted?

This is quite a jump. From essentially, "Someone should be shielded when there is evidence of political prosecution, but not if there isn't" how do you get to your conclusion that I support the Chinese prosecution of their dissidents?
Because it seems to me that this is pretty much the opposite of what I said.

There is no jump.
You are claiming that the UK is right to step into an Embassy to bring Assange to "justice" therefore the Chinese authorities should also be allowed to step into another country Ebassy to bring their political prisoners to "justice"

Gosh. That's a real stopper. Having to prove that the Swedes follow their own laws without showing that they have laws.
However, I'm not going to try, since I'm not an expert on Swedish law, don't have any great interest in becoming one, and don't believe I could reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into in the first place.

Take a deep breath
Repeat with me: "the allegation is that the Swedish Law has nothing to do with it"

The perception by non-Swedish legal experts of the Swedish justice system is that it is one of the least corrupt and least politically influenced.

In processes where the accused is guilty of leaks? Provide evidence

There is evidence against Sweden bowing to U.S. political pressure in the form of past cases in which Sweden refused to extradite people to the U.S. for what they considered to be political charges. Without evidence to the contrary for this particular case, I'm going to go with the conclusion that it's probably not politically motivated.

So far one or two cases in which the US have been denied extradition have been considered of "evidence" of the thousands of cases in which extradition has been requested

I'm certainly willing to reconsider if you present evidence to the contrary, but lack of evidence for a conspiracy is not evidence for a conspiracy.

The US Government has been embarassed by the leaks.
One of the responsible is Mr. Assange

Which of the above is conspiracy?

 

[Watanabe]

If you plan to respond, at least try and make sense.

Here's a simple question for you.

If a woman tells a man that she will not have sex with him in a particular way and the man then waits until she is incapable of saying no again and proceeds to start having sex with her in the way she previous stated multiple times was unacceptable to her, is that rape?

I would say yes, but this is irrelevant with the discussion we are having

 

[Andy_Ross]

If the US wanted him, why didn't they try to extradite him from the UK?

 

[Tolls]

If the US wanted him, why didn't they try to extradite him from the UK?

Because that would have been too easy?
They like a challenge...

 

[BenBurch]

Contradictory?
Please prove that Assange can not be extradited to the US.
If you think that a ,aw would prove that, please provide evicdence that that law can not be overturned, overlooked, simply ignored as it happens all the times

If we wanted him that badly, we'd have him now, or he'd be dead.

 

[Wudang]

Contradictory?
Please prove that Assange can not be extradited to the US.
If you think that a ,aw would prove that, please provide evicdence that that law can not be overturned, overlooked, simply ignored as it happens all the times

He cannot be extradited to the US. Period. The laws have been explained several times. He can be kidnapped (extraordinary rendition) but that can be done in any country and a hell of a lot easier in one country than arranging it so they can especially piss-off two friendly countries.

Can anyone give me any scenario in which involving both the UK and Sweden makes it easier?

 

[Watanabe]

He cannot be extradited to the US. Period.

Please evidence

 

[Watanabe]

If we wanted him that badly, we'd have him now, or he'd be dead.

You also want:
Ahmadinejiad
Fidel Castro
Assad
Nicolas Maduro
dead

They are all fine and dandy

 

[Watanabe]

If the US wanted him, why didn't they try to extradite him from the UK?

Because that would have been too easy?
They like a challenge...

Several lawyers beg to disagree with you
Since nobody here is an expert of international law we cant say much, I believe
The idea that the US are may be behind the prosecution however, stands.