Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Alt+F4]

You can ask Ronald Reagan about your "freedom fighters".

How can he do that? Reagan has been dead since 2004.

 

[Alt+F4]

Once in Sweden, Assange would locked up inside the prison system to be tried in secret by political appointees. If the prosecution failed (very likely if it were conducted honestly) and he was realeased, or after Assange had served his sentence, there would be nothing stopping him then being extradited or "rendered" to the human-rights-abusing USA.

I want Demi Moore to play me when "Nefarious Conspiracy of Epic Proportions" becomes a movie.

 

[Korren]

Sweden in submissive to and dependent on the USA.

With the possible exception of Finland, Sweden is probably that modern democracy which is least "submissive and dependent" on the USA. This is a country that, despite a shared border with the Soviet Union, balanced through the cold war as neutral, has a fiercely independent military (they're only eight million people but they make their own jet fighters) and to whom the USA is a minor trade partner.

 

[JihadJane]

With the possible exception of Finland, Sweden is probably that modern democracy which is least "submissive and dependent" on the USA. This is a country that, despite a shared border with the Soviet Union, balanced through the cold war as neutral, has a fiercely independent military (they're only eight million people but they make their own jet fighters) and to whom the USA is a minor trade partner.

Nice story, like the one Carl Bildt told about those scary, non-existent Russian submarines...

The United States is currently the third largest Swedish export trade partner and US companies are the most represented foreign companies in Sweden.

During the invasion and destruction of Libya , the Swedish Air Force worked closely with NATO and the USA.

(wikipedia)

 

[PhantomWolf]

The USA wants to punish Assange for the embarrassment he has caused and deter others from doing the same.

Got evidence of that, or is this just your opinion stated as fact?

Sweden is submissive to and dependent on the USA. It has ignored its own laws in the past under pressure from the US.

It also refused to extradite an ex-CIA agent to the US for espionage too, but no one every bothers to mention that.

Once in Sweden, Assange would locked up inside the prison system

No, he'll be held on remand without bail, which funnily enough is what happens to people that skip the country, fight extradition, and then break their bail conditions. It's called being a flight risk.

to be tried in secret by political appointees.

False.

If the prosecution failed (very likely if it were conducted honestly) and he was released, or after Assange had served his sentence, there would be nothing stopping him then being extradited or "rendered" to the human-rights-abusing USA

.

Blantently false, under European Law after any release in Sweden, he would have 45 days to leave the country before any further actions could be started against him.

He is not safe from political persecution in the UK or Sweden.

Bollocks and hogwash too. If the US really was like you seem to want to believe, Assange would already be dead. Since he isn't, your fantasy version of the US is clearly incorrect, shame you'll never leave your fantasy world and come visit the real one. It's no where near as scary as you believe.

That's why he's fled to Ecuador.

No, he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy for the same reason he fled Sweden, he's scared the truth will come out if he gets tried in Sweden, not that it would matter to his arden supporters, they wouldn't believe anything negative about him even if the whole thing had been on video.

 

[Korren]

Nice story, like the one Carl Bildt told about those scary, non-existent Russian submarines...

Oh, like U-137, you mean?

The United States is currently the third largest Swedish export trade partner and US companies are the most represented foreign companies in Sweden.

Fourth largest, but that's still only 6.5% of total Swedish exports and only 3.4% of total Swedish imports. That's a minor trade partner.

During the invasion and destruction of Libya , the Swedish Air Force worked closely with NATO and the USA.

Naturally enough, as the USA and later NATO were leading the operations. It would be hard for Sweden to operate independently of them.

 

[theprestige]

If the prosecution failed (very likely if it were conducted honestly) and he was released, or after Assange had served his sentence, there would be nothing stopping him then being extradited or "rendered" to the human-rights-abusing USA.

But that was true all along. It's almost as if his interest to the US has nothing to do with the rape case in Sweden.

He is not safe from political persecution in the UK or Sweden. That's why he's fled to Ecuador.

By strange coincidence, he felt perfectly safe in Sweden, until they started investigating him for rape. Then he felt perfectly safe in the UK, until they agreed to extradite him to Sweden to answer charges of rape.

It's almost as if his interest to the US has nothing to do with the rape case in Sweden.

 

[Here_to_learn]

By strange coincidence, he felt perfectly safe in Sweden, until they started investigating him for rape. Then he felt perfectly safe in the UK, until they agreed to extradite him to Sweden to answer charges of rape.

Actually you missed one step, he originally went to Sweden to get away from FBI operating in the UK.

 

[uke2se]

Just reiterating that the current narrative from the Assange-sycophants belong in Conspiracy Theories, not here.

 

[uke2se]

Nice story, like the one Carl Bildt told about those scary, non-existent Russian submarines...

If you're going to use history in your argument, it is best if you learn it first. Pick up a book about the submarine incursions into Swedish waters during the 70s and 80s. There's even conspiracy stuff you can cling to there to preserve your precious little mind. Some people think the submarines (that were there) were NATO subs.

As a side note, Carl Bildt was not in the government when these incursions where happening, so I don't know why you bring him up.

 

[JihadJane]

'Sweden Abandoning Afghans to Dreadful Fate'

The true colours of their government are showing.

Aftonbladet columnist Jan Guillou is fuming. Sweden got involved in the US war in Afghanistan in 2002, long before the parliament got any say in the matter, this to improve the country's chances to be welcomed into the fold of NATO, but also breaking a stellar and very proud tradition of avoiding all forms of warfare for almost two hundred years.

Sweden picked up 24 interpreters when they arrived, and now when they're getting ready to withdraw, they're abandoning their interpreters to a rather certain fate.

Briefly:

Sweden got in their first war in 200 years but never told the citizenry about it.
They're now withdrawing from this war in Afghanistan.
They're abandoning their 24 interpreters who will be hunted down and killed.
All 24 interpreters therefore applied in the Swedish embassy in Kabul for asylum.
They were driven from the premises and told they had to apply for asylum in Sweden.
They then applied for visas to Sweden.
Their applications for visas were turned down.

But rightly or wrongly, there's still a way to treat those who've taken risks for the countries involved in the conflict. The other countries fly out their interpreters. But not Sweden. The Swedes entangle the poor sods in deliberately impossible red tape and then leave them to a dreadful fate.

[My bold - JJ]

 

[The Big Dog]

The USA wants to punish Assange for the embarrassment he has caused and deter others from doing the same. The US persecutes whistleblowers, tortures and kills people it has imprisoned with impunity and locks people up infinitely without trial. Sweden is submissive to and dependent on the USA. It has ignored its own laws in the past under pressure from the US.

Once in Sweden, Assange would locked up inside the prison system to be tried in secret by political appointees. If the prosecution failed (very likely if it were conducted honestly) and he was released, or after Assange had served his sentence, there would be nothing stopping him then being extradited or "rendered" to the human-rights-abusing USA.

He is not safe from political persecution in the UK or Sweden. That's why he's fled to Ecuador.

That's why he's fled to human rights abusing Ecuador.

At first I was like, typical JJ, but then I read more and was like: "you know, that don't sound too bad." lulz.

Either way, Julian's finished whether in a prison in Sweden, or the end of a leash in freaking Ecuador.

Everything is coming up America baby!

And what is this whining about "political persecution" anyway? Everything that Julian does is political (well everything Julian does is about Julian, but politics is a close second) He admitted it when he got dismantled by Stephen Colbert of all people. He farked up when Poor Brad got mouthy in a chat room, and Julian got penis happy for Nordic women. And now he is in bed with a pack of thugs from South America. Too bad.

 

[The Big Dog]

'Sweden Abandoning Afghans to Dreadful Fate'

[My bold - JJ]

Wow, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The funny thing is that Julian was perfectly happy with Sweden before.

NOW Sweden is bad? Hee hee.

 

[Here_to_learn]

So just for fun, let's see what Jan Guillou thinks about JA...

Naturligtvis fanns det en risk att CIA eller någon annan amerikansk myndighet, som på goda grunder måtte ha hatat Julian Assange* och hans medhjälpare, började fundera på lömska metoder att komma åt honom. Men de hann, rimligtvis till sin förvåning, inte lyfta ett finger innan Julian Assange med kraft satte i gång att konspirera mot sig själv så att han till slut framstod som både klart misstänkt våldtäktsman och dessutom spritt språngande galen. All den tid, och pengar, han lade ner på advokatyr, ryktesspridning och konspirationer förlamade* självklart Wikileaks. Och hans många fiender löpte då bara risken att skratta ihjäl sig åt mannen som spratt*lade under den galge han själv snickrat ihop.

Google translate/My fixes:
Of course there was a risk that the CIA or any other federal group, who justly might have hated Julian Assange and his associates, began to think about underhand methods to get at him. But before they got going, they discovered, probably to their surprise, that they didn't have to lift a finger before Julian Assange started conspiring against himself, so that he finally seemed to be both clearly a suspected rapist and also stark raving mad. All the time and money he spent on lawyers, rumors and conspiracies paralyzed WikiLeaks. And his many enemies then only risk to laugh themselves to death at the man who struggled under the gallows he himself crafted.

 

[Joey McGee]

As clearly stated in my previous comments, I was talking about your bias, the bias that influences how you assign credibility.



Your Hezbollah diversion is irrelevant to the the topic we were addressing. You can ask Ronald Reagan about your "freedom fighters".



I call it gossip because you are engaging in random, scatter-gun smear.

What a joke, always twoofers switch to denigrating their opponent instead of answering the question. You handwave away the statements of several people that he wanted to publish the documents unredacted, and choose instead to engage in stock ct rhetoric. Further reinforcing your paranoid worldview

 

[Kaosium]

First I note that she still contains the same errors as her previous work, eg. claiming that the women were interviewed together, they weren't, in fact they were interviewed on separate days. Even on the day they made the complaint together they were seperated to tell their stories. She also claims that it's unusual to interview ex-boyfriends, when as others have pointed out previously, it isn't.

So is the prosecution unusual for a rape. Well yes. All rape prosecutions are unusual simply because the vast majority of them never get beyond a complaint. The real question is not is this complaint unusual compared to all complaints, but is this complaint unusual compared to other rape cases with a similar amount of evidence? That one we can't answer directly as we don't have all the evidence that the Prosecution does, but regardless of how some want to cut it we do know that FIVE courts have reviewed the evidence and unanimously concluded that there is sufficent evidence to proceed.

So, from the basis that multiple courts have agreed that there is sufficent evidence to proceed, it would seem most likely that the prosecution believe they have enough to gain a conviction, so the question is, is it unusual to persue a rape case where there is enough evidence to secure a conviction? I see no evidence that it would be unusual to proceed with prosecuting a rape case where the prosecution is confident of a result. In fact, I'd say that it would be unusual if they did not.

So the final question becomes, is it unusual to persue an alleged rapist that has fled prosecution when there is a case that the prosecution believes is strong? Again I have seen no evidence of Sweden or any other countries for that matter who merely throw their hands in the air when an alleged rapist runs and says, "Oh well we better drop the charges cause he ran away." Again I'd suggest that doing so would be unusual.

So really the conclusion is that while compoarted to all rapes, this one is being treated in an unusual manner, for a case that involves the prosecution believing that they have enough evidence to convict and having had that evidence tested in five courts to confirm that they do have a case, and in which the suspect has fled the juristiction of the Prosecution, it's being treated quite normally.

Isn't it unusual that it's gone through five courts? What is the evidence outside post-hoc semantics? That sort of thing seems to me to be better evidence of a politically motivated prosecution, especially as I understand it these two were activists as well?

 

[Kaosium]

The USA wants to punish Assange for the embarrassment he has caused and deter others from doing the same. The US persecutes whistleblowers, tortures and kills people it has imprisoned with impunity and locks people up infinitely without trial. Sweden is submissive to and dependent on the USA. It has ignored its own laws in the past under pressure from the US.

Once in Sweden, Assange would locked up inside the prison system to be tried in secret by political appointees. If the prosecution failed (very likely if it were conducted honestly) and he was released, or after Assange had served his sentence, there would be nothing stopping him then being extradited or "rendered" to the human-rights-abusing USA.

He is not safe from political persecution in the UK or Sweden. That's why he's fled to Ecuador.

If we wanted him that badly why would we do it so stupidly?

Nevermind, I got to looking more into it and I can see why you'd think our government might be behind it. I went to the Wiki page, I saw the quotes from King, McConnell, Palin, Gingrich et al. What he did didn't really damage us that badly, but those who made the choice that the Taliban, Zimbabwe government etc were a greater menace than the United States is. Assange might have put those people in danger, thus we're required to be really angry about it and shout out loud. However if you think on it, were we to have been as serious as those people intimated it wouldn't have been two Swedish activists 'disguised' as groupies we sent after him, it would have been someone far less prettier.

However it looks to me like we didn't even have to do anything, dogma has destroyed him.

 

[WildCat]

Wow, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The funny thing is that Julian was perfectly happy with Sweden before.

NOW Sweden is bad? Hee hee.

Those Vikings are tricksy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Isn't it unusual that it's gone through five courts?

I'd agree that it is, but only because most people wouldn't have let it get to one court before dealing with it properly, Assange has done everything in his power to drag this out as long as possible.

Every single one of those five court hearings could have been avoided by Assange, every single one of them was forced on Sweden.

#1 - The original hearing for approval of a EAW. Has Assange not fled the country (sorry, left without getting in touch with his lawyer who was told three times that Assange was wanted for interrogation and claimed he was not able to pass on the message, after being caught out claiming he never got them. Tui's ad anyone?) this one would never have had to occur. It also would have likely stopped the whole thing in its tracks.

#2 - Assange tells his lawyers to appeal the decision granting the EAW. Again, this one is totally on Assange. He didn't have to appeal the decision.

#3 - Extradition Case before the Chief Justice. Assange could have avoided this one by simply returning to Sweden. He chose instead to fight and so this court hearing became necessary.

#4 - British Court of Appeal. Again, this was Assange's doing. He demanded that his Lawyers appealed the decision that went against him in the first extradition case. Had he accepted the verdict and returned to Sweden, this hearing never would have happened.

#5 - British Supreme Court. Once again, Assange was behind the need for this hearing. He once more told his lawyers to appeal the decision.

So yes it is unusal that it has gone through five courts, but the unusual bit is not that it has done so, but that Assange has lost, and lost dramatically at every stage, with his lawyers even having been censured for lying to the courts, and yet he keeps trying to fight it not on the merits but based on Conspriacy Theories.

What is the evidence outside post-hoc semantics?

It's not at all about "post-hoc semantics". One woman claimed that he held her down, prevented her from reaching for a condom, and attempted to enter her against her will by pushing her legs apart as she resisted.

The second woman claims that dispite being clearly told the previous evening that she would not have sex with him without a condom, he did so anyway while she was not fully awake (there is some dispute to if she was dozing or asleeep at the time).

These aren't just plays on semantics, if the claims are true, then they are very serious allegations and would be a criminal offence in any first world contry.

That sort of thing seems to me to be better evidence of a politically motivated prosecution, especially as I understand it these two were activists as well?

They were supporters of both his and Wikileaks, not exact the sort of people you'd expect to try and bring him down with lies depite claims made by those who spent months digging through the victims lives for dirt to muddy them and their characters. At the end of the day it's not about the alledged victims. We don't, at least we shouldn't, decide justice on how much we like the alleged perpetrator and how little we like the alledged victim, we decide it based on the facts of the incident. Currently these are that he most likely did as claimed, unless he can show otherwise which he has continually refrained from doing despite repeated opportunities to. To the Conspriacy he continues to claim, there is no eidence at all.

 

[JihadJane]

Oh, like U-137, you mean?

No, not that drunken accident.

All the other imaginary ones and this submarine in particular:

Naturally enough, as the USA and later NATO were leading the operations. It would be hard for Sweden to operate independently of them.

Since when did neutral countries participate in US/NATO regime change invasions?

_____________

What a joke, always twoofers switch to denigrating their opponent instead of answering the question. You handwave away the statements of several people that he wanted to publish the documents unredacted, and choose instead to engage in stock ct rhetoric. Further reinforcing your paranoid worldview

He'd be no worse than the Swedish government, then, who are leaving the interpreters behind to their fate (see above).

Have you forgotten your original claim?