Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Captain.Sassy]

I was under the impression that the documents in fact showed the US pointedly not using strong-arm diplomatic tactics even when asked by interested parties,

you count RIAA as an interested party?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/how-the-us-convinced-spain-to-adopt-internet-censorship/

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2011/09/06/Wikileaks-Copyright-US-Pressure/

US agricompanies?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/20/us-retaliation-list-gm-crops-cablegate/

and that the military reports from Afghanistan actually showed a smaller number of civilian casualties than estimated by humanitarian groups.

Maybe less than 'humanitarian groups' (which ones?) but for sure more than official US sources were owning up to... despite actually knowing the number...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911504575569921521613604.html

 

[PhantomWolf]

That's what I don't get. Assange supporters talk like the rape charges are a "pretext" to get him into custody so that he can be extradited to the US. But where does that line of thinking come from? When the US asked Australia to apprehend and extradite the CEO of Megaupload, the Australian authorities didn't make up some crime to arrest him for first; they just arrested him. Same thing when the US asked Switzerland to arrest Roman Polanski for them. They just went to wherever he was and arrested him. In both cases there was then an extradition hearing of course. But there's no conceivable reason why, if the US had asked Sweden to detain and extradite Assange, the Swedish police wouldn't just have gone and taken him into custody as usual.

Well that would explain the collousal stuff up that was, darn Ozzies, now they are arresting people who aren't in their country too.

 

[JihadJane]

Quite frankly I think Assange ascribes rather more importance to himself than the US Government does.

Based on my experience, I would say we view him as little more than an annoying little attention whore who is constantly jumping up and down shouting, "look at me, look at me, I'm standing up to eeeeeeebil guvmints!!" Setting aside the fact that he seems to focus more or less solely on the US (and not, say, on North Korea, which is notorious for REALLY oppressing its people rather than the pseudo-oppression Assange and many CTers ascribe to the US government) in that regard, I for one would find it very surprising if the US government were interested in acquiring Assange at all. Silencing his efforts, certainly; I don't doubt that pretty much the entirety of the US government would absolutely LOVE to shut down Wikileaks altogether; but he himself? Not really a high value target, despite his posturing otherwise.

I have yet to see any definite evidence that indicates the US Government has any interest in acquiring Assange whatsoever (and please don't bring up the Stratfor emails; one, Stratfor is an independent, privately owned agency, and the opinion of one single member (which is essentially the content of the emails in question IIRC; i.e. one member speculating that the US Government will want to acquire Assange with no evidence to back up said speculation) does not represent the opinion of the agency as a whole, and two, Stratfor and the US Government have little or nothing to do with each other, since, as I said, Stratfor is a privately owned agency of sorts based out of Austin, TX.) Aside from Mr. Assange's hysterical assumptions that we want him, I tend to agree with others on here who have stated that we have the culprit we want to try for the Wikileaks fiasco already in custody; namely Bradley Manning. Assange; eh, we'd be happy if he'd just shut up, in my opinion.

As you haven't offered any evidence that Assange's "assumptions" are "hysterical", besides "based on my experience" psychobabble and squawking stupidly about "eeeeeeebil guvmints", as if that constitutes an argument, it's reasonable to speculate that you are simply smearing him. It's also reasonable to speculate that you are doing this for political reasons as it appears you are in deep denial about the oppressive actions of the US government and its corporate partners around the world and within its own boundaries.

_________



@Here_to_learn: Another example of an ebil gubminter.

 

[PhantomWolf]

As you haven't offered any evidence that Assange's "assumptions" are "hysterical", besides "based on my experience" psychobabble and squawking stupidly about "eeeeeeebil guvmints", as if that constitutes an argument, it's reasonable to speculate that you are simply smearing him. It's also reasonable to speculate that you are doing this for political reasons as it appears you are in deep denial about the oppressive actions of the US government and its corporate partners around the world and within its own boundaries.

You do realise that Sabrina is ex-Military Intelligence don't you? She knows far more about that world that you ever will in your deluded dreams. Considering her past, I'd say that her "opinion" is worth far more than anything you have ever brought to the table.

 

[uke2se]

As you haven't offered any evidence that Assange's "assumptions" are "hysterical", besides "based on my experience" psychobabble and squawking stupidly about "eeeeeeebil guvmints", as if that constitutes an argument, it's reasonable to speculate that you are simply smearing him. It's also reasonable to speculate that you are doing this for political reasons as it appears you are in deep denial about the oppressive actions of the US government and its corporate partners around the world and within its own boundaries.

Since Sabrina is actually in the employ of the US military, she obviously knows a lot more about these matters than you do. Hell, almost anyone obviously knows a hell of a lot more about these matters than you do.

Nobody needs to present evidence that Assange isn't being persecuted by the US government. You and other people who share your warped views need to present evidence that he is.

 

[a_unique_person]

Quite frankly I think Assange ascribes rather more importance to himself than the US Government does.

Given the interest in him here alone, he appears to carry a certain importance.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

You do realise that Sabrina is ex-Military Intelligence don't you? She knows far more about that world that you ever will in your deluded dreams. Considering her past, I'd say that her "opinion" is worth far more than anything you have ever brought to the table.

You do realize that appeal to authority is a fallacy don't you? As if being an ex-military intelligentist would give one special insight into whether there are moves afoot behind the scenes to extradite Assange. Either you have some priveleged knowledge on this matter or you don't. Perhaps you may grant Sabrina 'special privileges to speculate', or some such nonsense, but that is not worth taking seriously.

 

[Sabrina]

You do realise that Sabrina is ex-Military Intelligence don't you? She knows far more about that world that you ever will in your deluded dreams. Considering her past, I'd say that her "opinion" is worth far more than anything you have ever brought to the table.

Nothing "ex" about it; I'm still in the Army Reserves and am serving in my unit as the assistant Brigade S2 (aka Intelligence Officer). I also have experience as a civilian working with the various agencies via projects I've worked on, and as such have been exposed to the overall opinion of numerous government personnel regarding Mr. Assange.

Given the interest in him here alone, he appears to carry a certain importance.

Yes, but "here" is hardly representative of the US Government. And considering "here" is an internet forum where people largely express opinions on subjects, I don't think you can really compare the two.

You do realize that appeal to authority is a fallacy don't you? As if being an ex-military intelligentist would give one special insight into whether there are moves afoot behind the scenes to extradite Assange. Either you have some priveleged knowledge on this matter or you don't. Perhaps you may grant Sabrina 'special privileges to speculate', or some such nonsense, but that is not worth taking seriously.

Again, nothing "ex" about it; but setting that aside, what about my opinion is an appeal to authority, pray tell? I pretty clearly stated in my post that what I was posting was solely my opinion, as indicated by the qualifiers "I think", "I would say", "I for one would find it very surprising", etc. I never once definitively said that what I was saying was actually the stance of the US Government; merely that it was my interpretation of the stance based solely on my observations and somewhat on my experience as a military intelligence officer (side note: what is a "military intelligentist" anyway?). Assange, based largely on my knowledge of how we pick high-value targets, is nowhere near as important as he thinks he is. I don't believe you can assign the logical fallacy "appeal to authority" to one person's opinion on a matter. If your issue is with me using my own experience (which is hardly an appeal to authority either) to offer an opinion, then what, pray tell, is NOT an "appeal to authority" to you?

 

[a_unique_person]

Ecuadore has offered to make a deal with Sweden. If they guarantee he won't be turned over to the USA, then he will go to Sweden.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, but "here" is hardly representative of the US Government. And considering "here" is an internet forum where people largely express opinions on subjects, I don't think you can really compare the two.

The hatred from the US commentators here towards him is palpable. Just sayin.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Given the interest in him here alone, he appears to carry a certain importance.

By that criteria, Captain Bob and Icantakepicturesofdemons better watch out.

 

[Sabrina]

The hatred from the US commentators here towards him is palpable. Just sayin.

Again, "here" is not representative of the US Government. One cannot extrapolate the position of the US Government toward Assange from the opinions of random forum posters on the internet. The argument that I presented was that, from my observation of government personnel I've worked with recently and based on my past experience as a military intelligence officer, the US Government does not assign nearly as much importance to Assange as he likes to think we do. It is purely my opinion, of course, but has absolutely nothing to do with the opinion of posters on this forum from the US who may think Assange is scum of the lowest order; they are not the US Government. And the US Government, thus far, has shown little or no interest in acquiring Assange, despite his protestations to the contrary. That at least is demonstrable fact.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And if you would know something to the contrary, you wouldn't be allowed to tell us and maybe even been told to tell us the opposite, which makes your stated opinion worth LESS than everybody elses.

 

[barium]

Ecuadore has offered to make a deal with Sweden. If they guarantee he won't be turned over to the USA, then he will go to Sweden.

It wouldn't matter if our politicians gave Ecuador such a guarantee. All requests for extradition are judged on a case by case basis by our judicial system.

USA could give such a guarantee, but I can't see why they would.

 

[Sabrina]

The government does not censor the personal opinions of its workers, CE; contrary to what you and many other CTers believe, the US is not a dictatorship.

Not sure why I'm bothering though; I could provide incontrovertible evidence via a memo signed by the President, every sitting member of Congress, and all sixteen heads of the intel agencies that we have no interest in acquiring Assange and you'd still persist in believing what you want to believe. Is it nice in your paranoid world?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ecuadore has offered to make a deal with Sweden. If they guarantee he won't be turned over to the USA, then he will go to Sweden.

Which would mean that Assange could then use Sweden as a safe haven if he ever committed a crime in the USA.

Dave

 

[eirik]

The hatred from the US commentators here towards him is palpable. Just sayin.

The neglect and abuse from the progressive leftists here towards rape victims is horrifying. You shame yourselves.

Regards from Norway

 

[theprestige]

Ecuadore has offered to make a deal with Sweden. If they guarantee he won't be turned over to the USA, then he will go to Sweden.

Why on earth would Sweden even consider such a deal?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Why on earth would Sweden even consider such a deal?

It isn't meant to be a deal that Sweden would accpet.

It is meant to be a deal that everyone believes will not be accepted, but can be used by one side to posture. "Well, we made this offer -- it was you unreasonable people who refuse to compromise."

 

[Here_to_learn]

I would like to know what Allen thinks of...

Just ask him. He occasionally posts here as Jack of Kent, and is on twitter.

Today he tweeted this link regarding the temporary surrender stuff:
http://gregcallus.tumblr.com/post/29939891330/assange-sweden-temporary-surrender-eaw

Whether Julian Assange is in the UK or in Sweden, his chances of extradition to the US are unchanged, because the final decision will always be that of the British Home Secretary. Therefore, I see no reason for him not to face the sexual offences allegations. When (or if) the Home Secretary does entertain the request from the US, I will fight that with ever sinew of my being. But that is a separate fight for another day. On the issue at present, I see no reason why Swedish justice should not run its course.