• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Will Assange End up in American Jail?

Do You Think Assange Will End up in American Jail?

  • Yes - and he should

    Votes: 12 10.2%
  • Yes - but he shouldn't

    Votes: 26 22.0%
  • No - but he should

    Votes: 16 13.6%
  • No - and he shouldn't

    Votes: 64 54.2%

  • Total voters
    118
I voted no - and he should not. The diplomatic row and the years of ruined diplomatic relationship and the chinese and russian alughing and pointing the finger at the US , all those alone would probably make the US back off.
 
He probably won't eventually.

But I hate the man with a passion. His entire movement is shallow, hypocritical and ultimately just the insane idea of a narcissist. I hope the whole thing goes down in flames and those responsible pay very, very dearly.
 
Consider his current position.
He's holed up in an Embassy where he's going to get on the nerves of lots of people.
In spite of diplomatic protection they'll probably boot him out the front door
He can't walk out the front door because he'll end up in a real prison.
And his Juliet act in a balcony scene is more a farce than fact. .
 
Assange would be locked up in a prison cell on entering Sweden.

Well, I'd hope so. He's fled the country once to escape justice, and has shown that he can't be trusted with being let out on bail in the UK.

I fail to see how this is a problem, since he's kinda brought it on himself. You know, with all the rapy rape stuff.
 
I really don't understand the basic premise of the Ecuadorian intervention.

Detailed reasoning for granting of asylum:

'Press conference with Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño Aroca: Ecuador grants asylum to Julian Assange. (English translation)'



Well, I'd hope so. He's fled the country once to escape justice, and has shown that he can't be trusted with being let out on bail in the UK.

I fail to see how this is a problem, since he's kinda brought it on himself. You know, with all the rapy rape stuff.

How do you know that "he's kinda brought it on himself"? Psychic powas?

What definition of "rapy stuff" are you using here?
 
Last edited:
well, I guess he's less likely to end up in American jail now....

I really don't understand the basic premise of the Ecuadorian intervention.
Maybe this will help.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/o...ay-in-ecuador-embassy.html?ref=julianpassange
That relationship soured in early April 2011, when the Ecuadorean government expelled the American ambassador, Heather M. Hodges, angered by comments she had made in confidential cables, obtained by WikiLeaks, in which she accused Mr. Correa of appointing a corrupt police chief in order to have someone in the post “whom he could easily manipulate.”

The topic of the cable was particularly sensitive given the timing: Mr. Correa had just survived the greatest challenge to his presidency — and an attempt on his life — in the form of a police mutiny following the passage of legislation designed to standardize pay for public employees, which would have curtailed pay and benefits for the police force.

The United States retaliated by declaring the Ecuadorean ambassador in Washington persona non grata. In an interview conducted with Mr. Assange in June 2012, Mr. Correa also expressed his anger at the “imperialist attitude” of Ms. Hodges, who refused to either apologize or retract her comments.

While the two countries have new ambassadors in place, the wound remains raw. The opportunity to settle a grudge with the United States by refusing to deliver Julian Assange to authorities in either Sweden or the United States, where he could be charged with leaking classified documents, was simply too good to miss.

Correa's merely an opportunist.
 
Unless someone whisked him away from Sweden and then forcibly removed him from his house arrest, he brought it on hímself.

You are conveniently ignoring the political realities of being a whistleblower in the "free" world.

The legal definition of "rape".

Which is?



That is merely a smear.

He receiving widespread support from other countries.


Detailed reasoning for granting of asylum:

'Press conference with Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño Aroca: Ecuador grants asylum to Julian Assange. (English translation)'
 
You are conveniently ignoring the political realities of being a whistleblower in the "free" world.

No, I am not. Assange isn't a whistleblower.


Which is?

I'm not going to google up the definition for you. You can do that yourself. Suffice to say, both Sweden and the UK agrees that what Assange is accused of falls under the definition of rape.

That is merely a smear.

Is it untrue?

He receiving widespread support from other countries.

Which countries?
 
No, I am not. Assange isn't a whistleblower.

Yes, he is.

I'm not going to google up the definition for you.

Dodge.

You can do that yourself. Suffice to say, both Sweden and the UK agrees that what Assange is accused of falls under the definition of rape.

No, they don't. Their definitions are different.



Is it untrue?

Yes. It's naive, schoolyard, tabloid rubbish of the kind that often passes for critical thinking on JREF!

'Press conference with Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño Aroca: Ecuador grants asylum to Julian Assange. (English translation)'



Which countries?

Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Venezuela, Dominica, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname and others.


Sex without consent.

Where, specifically, does this legal definition come from?



Then shame on them. They should support wikileaks, not a rapist on the run.

How do you know he is a rapist, barium? Psychic?
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Suffice to say, both Sweden and the UK agrees that what Assange is accused of falls under the definition of rape.
No, they don't. Their definitions are different.
Why do you say that?

The High Court has ruled that the alleged actions would be considered rape according to English law.
See for example the Jack of Kent blog post:
Jack of Kent said:
But there is no doubt that, as a statement of positive law, English courts have held – twice – that the relevant allegation would also be an allegation of the offence of rape in English law.
 
Yes, he is.

No, he's not. Bradley Manning is.



Nope.


No, they don't. Their definitions are different.

Their wording may be different but as determined by the high court, both nations share the same definition here.


Yes. It's naive, schoolyard, tabloid rubbish of the kind that often passes for critical thinking on JREF!

Please prove that what the NY Times said happened didn't.

Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Venezuela, Dominica, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname and others.

:dl:


Where, specifically, does this legal definition come from?

Stop throwing red herrings. Are you unhappy with the definition of rape?

How do you know he is a rapist, barium? Psychic?

Evidence presented enough for an extradition and he ran. Innocent men don't run.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom