Julian Assange is a prick.

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
Denny Wallace said:
Nobody who espouses wild conspiracy theories thinks that they are wild conspiracy theories. The guy wearing the tin foil hat to block the Illuminati brain scanning rays is being perfectly sensible in his own mind. It's for the rest of us to say he's kooky.

I'll tune into the whole conspiracy angle the very moment there is any credible evidence at all that such a conspiracy exists instead of the perfectly reasonable series of events that have put Assange into the position he's in, all of which are his own fault.

If the charges are false then he better go ahead and answer them. Oh, instead he's hiding in the embassy of a country with a history of free speech abuse? How awkward.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
There's no chance in hell that Assange could ever be convicted in an honest trial.

The press have already torn that case to shreds. There's zero proof of the aledged rape and plenty of evidence to disprove the case.

Assange has logical reason to be suspicious of the extraditement request. Hopeless cases get dropped even before they reach court, so an honest trial is not likely to be the true reason for the request.
Sweden probably mean to send him to the USA, in spite of leaders saying otherwise. It wouldn't be the first time a politician breaks a promise and this is one word they can easily break without consequences.
 

Kirex

New member
Jun 24, 2011
67
0
0
itsthesheppy said:
Ah, hahahah. Like I said. Adorable. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Julian Assange: Coward, (possible) rapist, hypocrite, spineless little weasel. Your hero, ladies and gentlemen. The great paragon of truth, hiding inside the embassy of a government somewhat infamous [http://www.cpj.org/2012/02/el-universo-sentence-a-dark-precedent-for-free-pre.php] for its crackdown on free speech. [http://en.rsf.org/ecuador-weekly-unable-to-publish-after-06-08-2012,43167.html]

Shame on him and shame on his supporters for not understanding the facts and carrying on with wild conspiracy theories and limp-wristed apologetics.
I kind of get where you're coming from, but you're still trivializing rape while you spout anger all over Assange. I don't know the specifics of the case, so there's that, and yes, having sex without a condom while the partner specifically pointed out that he wants to use one is and should be a punishable offense(and severely punishable at that). I just wouldn't call it rape, because it doesn't quite fit the definition.

Hypocrite? Spineless? Yes, I can see why you would call him that. A criminal? Only when it's proven. I don't like him, but that doesn't mean I have to take accusations as fact, that's not the way a fair evaluation goes. Sure, it's quite suspicious that he doesn't face the court, but that could have other reasons beside being actually guilty, you know?
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
Kirex said:
I don't know the specifics of the case
This might have been a good place to stop and fix that.

[...] so there's that, and yes, having sex without a condom while the partner specifically pointed out that he wants to use one is and should be a punishable offense(and severely punishable at that). I just wouldn't call it rape, because it doesn't quite fit the definition.
Rape is sex without consent. Full stop. In fact, read that sentence again.

Did you? If not, please do. If you have, please do again. In fact, I'll type it again, for ease of reading:

Rape is sex without consent.

That's it, that's the definition. That's what it is.

If I have sex with you under false pretenses, or while you're too inebriated to object, or flat-out unconscious, or if you rescind consent halfway through and I don't stop, that's all rape. It's not just when someone wearing a ski mask jumps out of the bushes. It is a crime that covers many possible instances and all of them are terrible.

Assange is accused of, to my knowledge, two different rapey things. First, having sex with a woman without a condom where she made it clear that the condom was necessary. That's rape; she didn't consent to the sex that happened. The other case was that he had sex with a woman while she was unconscious. No consent was possible. That's rape too.

I for one am happy that the people who seem to think differently, that some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others, are either not in positions to make policy, or are publicly grilled [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57498025-503544/ryan-grilled-on-abortion-and-forcible-rape/] and vilified for their dark-ages reasoning. I sincerely hope you don't work in law, enforcement or otherwise.
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,742
0
41
Country
USA
Denny Wallace said:
Ok, that's great and all, but why did you quote me? Click the wrong post? When I spoke of the government, I was speaking of the USA's.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Please, can we have some innocent until proven guilty up in here? As far as I'm concerned it's almost entirely probably a ploy. The case was only revived after Wikileaks, and is clearly a way to get him to Sweden so he can be extradited and given the death sentence. Guilty or not, and regardless of what happens in the sexual assault case, he's a dead man if he goes there. I'd be clinging to Ecuador too.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
Boudica said:
DRes82 said:
Boudica said:
Don't put possible in parenthesis. That just makes you and your entire argument look bad. He is an accused rapist and that is all. Util things change, word it as such.
Yes, he is only an accused rapist, but he is actually a hypocrite and coward. Sounds like a real stand up guy. I honestly can't understand how there is any sympathy for him at all.
I just don't like it when people forgo things because they dislike someone. If it was their parent, they'd defend them to the ends of the Earth and remind everyone that they are accused and nothing more. But the second it's someone they dislike, they feel a little looser with their words.

Innocent until proven otherwise, or, until I think you did it.

EDIT: there their

I've done that a few times this week -_-
I agree with you that letting personal bias affect you in a matter of law is not a good thing. However, even if you don't take into account the fact that he is an accused rapist and you agree with the fact that he exposed shady government dealings at the expense of personnel in the field, its still hard to have any sort of empathy for the guy. He's just not a real likable person. A paragon of truth and justice doesn't hide from the law in an embassy of a country that is known to be tyrannical[footnote]Did you know that its actually safer to visit Colombia than it is to visit Ecuador?[/footnote]. I feel that in this matter, people who are supporting him might just want to take a closer look at the other stuff he has actually done.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,761
266
88
Country
US
itsthesheppy said:
Rape is sex without consent. Full stop. In fact, read that sentence again.

Did you? If not, please do. If you have, please do again. In fact, I'll type it again, for ease of reading:

Rape is sex without consent.

That's it, that's the definition. That's what it is.
Could you and evilthecat argue about that for a bit, it'd be nice to not be the one who gets the "PIV intercourse where the male doesn't consent isn't rape" speech this thread. =p

As for Assange, yes, he is very much a prick.

Is he a rapist prick? Fuck if I know, only three people in the world have anything resembling a true answer to that. He's certainly been accused of it, albeit with some weirdness involving the process.

In between it being closed and then reopened, didn't he actually ask for permission to leave the country before doing so? I recall reading that somewhere but for the life of me can't remember where.
 

ArnRand

New member
Mar 29, 2012
180
0
0
MeChaNiZ3D said:
Please, can we have some innocent until proven guilty up in here? As far as I'm concerned it's almost entirely probably a ploy. The case was only revived after Wikileaks, and is clearly a way to get him to Sweden so he can be extradited and given the death sentence. Guilty or not, and regardless of what happens in the sexual assault case, he's a dead man if he goes there. I'd be clinging to Ecuador too.
'The arrest warrant was canceled on 21 August 2010 by one of Stockholm's Chief Prosecutors, Eva Finne'

'The warrant was subsequently re-issued by another Swedish Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny on 1 September 2010 who considered that the allegations could be classed as rape after all'

'On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing some of the 251,000 American diplomatic cables in their possession'

Take a look at those dates. (it's from wikipedia by the way.)

Oh and another thing, Sweden isn't allowed to extradite anyone sentenced with a death sentence.

'Swedish law and the European human rights convention ratified by Sweden ban the extradition of a person to a country where they could face the death penalty.'

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/sweden-unlikely-extradite-assange-us-australia-013726799.html
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
MeChaNiZ3D said:
Please, can we have some innocent until proven guilty up in here? As far as I'm concerned it's almost entirely probably a ploy. The case was only revived after Wikileaks, and is clearly a way to get him to Sweden so he can be extradited and given the death sentence. Guilty or not, and regardless of what happens in the sexual assault case, he's a dead man if he goes there. I'd be clinging to Ecuador too.
Actually, the "case", such as it was, was never dropped.

What happened, in truth, is that the most grievous of the charges leveled against him were dropped, temporarily, until the lawyer for the victims argued that have them reinstated. There was never a time where Assange was considered free from all wrongdoing, it was just for a few weeks he was wanted for questioning on sexual harassment rather than sexual assault, essentially.

Additionally, the case was not revived after "Wikileaks", whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm assuming you're talking about the release of the US diplomatic cable file, which happened in November of 2010, around two months after Assange fled from Sweden after learning he was to be arrested.

Furthermore, there's no reason to wait until Assange gets extradited to Sweden if the US really wanted to file charges against him. The US has very robust extradition treaties with the UK, after all. Stronger, in fact, than the ones with Sweden.

Assange is just a hypocrite who feels he should be above the law.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 8, 2009
2,406
87
53
MeChaNiZ3D said:
Please, can we have some innocent until proven guilty up in here? As far as I'm concerned it's almost entirely probably a ploy. The case was only revived after Wikileaks, and is clearly a way to get him to Sweden so he can be extradited and given the death sentence. Guilty or not, and regardless of what happens in the sexual assault case, he's a dead man if he goes there. I'd be clinging to Ecuador too.
If America really wanted Assange dead over Wikileaks, it's far more likely that they would have sent an assassin after him, or painted his as a Taliban or al-Qeada member/sympathizer. It would be quicker and far more effective than having Sweden arrest him on trumped up charges, extradite him to America so that they could put him through a sham trial and execute him.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
twistedmic said:
If America really wanted Assange dead over Wikileaks, it's far more likely that they would have sent an assassin after him, or painted his as a Taliban or al-Qeada member/sympathizer. It would be quicker and far more effective than having Sweden arrest him on trumped up charges, extradite him to America so that they could put him through a sham trial and execute him.
Personally if I wanted to ruin someone's credibility I'd run their name through the mud.

That way you get the common man on your side lambasting them all over the internet.

Cheaper and much more effective than turning him into a martyr.

Terrorist sympathizer would have been too on the nose.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 8, 2009
2,406
87
53
theultimateend said:
Personally if I wanted to ruin someone's credibility I'd run their name through the mud.

That way you get the common man on your side lambasting them all over the internet.

Cheaper and much more effective than turning him into a martyr.

Terrorist sympathizer would have been too on the nose.
I'll give you that. But there are easier ways of ruining a man's reputation/image/name than falsify charges. Planting child porn on his computer or physically in his home or plant enough drugs (cocaine or heroin) to make it look like he's a drug-runner would make him look a lot worse than falsifying rape charges (not that I'm saying the charges are false, I don't know enough details to make an informed decision).
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
twistedmic said:
theultimateend said:
Personally if I wanted to ruin someone's credibility I'd run their name through the mud.

That way you get the common man on your side lambasting them all over the internet.

Cheaper and much more effective than turning him into a martyr.

Terrorist sympathizer would have been too on the nose.
I'll give you that. But there are easier ways of ruining a man's reputation/image/name than falsify charges. Planting child porn on his computer or physically in his home or plant enough drugs (cocaine or heroin) to make it look like he's a drug-runner would make him look a lot worse than falsifying rape charges (not that I'm saying the charges are false, I don't know enough details to make an informed decision).
The child porn seems like a good route but the thing is this man became famous from others leaving dangerous evidence on their PCs for others to pilfer. It seems unlikely he'd not be paranoid about his own traffic history.

Now, lying about wearing a condom? That's something anyone can at least comprehend being done. I was in college not too long ago and I can think of dozens of guys who would have done something that stupid.

Plus its called Rape (which to me undermines actual forced sex, but whatever people like buzz words) which immediately puts him in the shitter. There is no such thing as a rapist with a conscious, they are vicious animals.

BAM he's done. Few folks will ever research it beyond the news story breaking because its one of three or so acts that are utterly unforgiveable in the US.

Anywho it only pisses me off because I have actually had to council someone after they were physically forced into sex (raped). Hearing it for when people fib bothers me. By that logic it seems like if you had sex with someone because they believed you were rich but you weren't that you raped them.

It is too broad a stroke, this is a serious crime that ruins folks emotionally for a long time (if not forever). That's mostly where my bitterness comes in and my skepticism of the average reader's judgment skills come into question.

The timing of the report resurfacing were at the peak of Wikileaks popularity.

Similarly the guy did quite a few televised interviews and while he came across as awkward I don't recall him ever acting like a prick. But what do I know, he obviously runs around raping people so he must be a monster who is avoiding justice.

itsthesheppy said:
If I have sex with you under false pretenses, or while you're too inebriated to object, or flat-out unconscious, or if you rescind consent halfway through and I don't stop, that's all rape. It's not just when someone wearing a ski mask jumps out of the bushes. It is a crime that covers many possible instances and all of them are terrible.
If sex under false pretenses is how you classify rape you just named easily millions (if not more) people as rapists. I'd be willing to argue that nearly everyone who has ever lived who has had sex has had sex under false pretenses at least once.

Throwing the common understand of rape into "lying for sex" is incredibly disingenuous and insulting to any victim of rape. Being lied to and being physically assaulted are astronomically different events that cannot be comparable in basically any way I can fathom in my mind.

Guh...just the idea that you'd put them on the same tier is mind blowing to me.
 

icythepenguin

New member
Jun 5, 2012
39
0
0
When the trouble first started for Assange after he leaked those US military documents, I had some respect for him. It seemed like he was trying to make the US military accountable for their actions. But I lost all respect and sympathy for him when he turned around and started making threats and demands.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335888/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-release-damaging-secrets-killed-arrested.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Frankly once you start pulling this, you're no longer an advocate for transparency, you're just another prick with his finger on a button. His tactics make him a hypocrite and frankly he's an even bigger idiot than I thought if he truly believes the US can't get him in Ecuador. Obviously he's never come across any documents detailing people being blackbagged by the CIA and taken to a torture friendly country.
 

Aaron Foltz

New member
Aug 6, 2012
69
0
0
To me, Assange wanted to show the world that all of the country's leaders are assholes just like anyone else. Now the mirror has been shown to them I'm sure someone wants him dead because of it. The criminal charges are just to get him running and show the world that in fact he is a coward that sits behind the computer, just like everyone else. haha.
 

Kermi

New member
Nov 7, 2007
2,538
0
0
Assange hasn't been shown to do anything wrong. Until he is, I don't have an opinion.

American friends of mine think he should be hanged because OMG HE PUBLISHED OUR SECRETS but he didn't publish anything that an investigative journalist wouldn't have published, and in some cases major US newspapers have published the same information - only they failed to redact parts that Wikileaks redacted.

Their real problem with Assange (and they've admitted this under my cross examination of their arguments) is that he's not American. If he were an American and publishing information handed to him about any other country, they'd be in support of his work.

I've yet to see anyone put up a reasonable and non-hypocritical reason as to why Assange should be arrested/imprisoned. I personally think the assault charges are false, though I obviously have no evidence for that apart from the timing if the allegations being raised being awfully convenient.
 

Kirex

New member
Jun 24, 2011
67
0
0
itsthesheppy said:
I for one am happy that the people who seem to think differently, that some rapes are more legitimate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Akin] than others, are either not in positions to make policy, or are publicly grilled [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57498025-503544/ryan-grilled-on-abortion-and-forcible-rape/] and vilified for their dark-ages reasoning. I sincerely hope you don't work in law, enforcement or otherwise.
No, I don't. I never said that the one thing is more legitimate than the other. Even if I worked in law, I would have given it the same sentence, I was just wrong about the nomenclature. Why are you so worked up about a linguistical misunderstanding?
I just said "I wouldn't call it that", yes, I was wrong, but in no way did I mean to imply that it was better than other kinds of rape. I'm really sorry if I did that.
 

Sidiron

New member
Feb 11, 2008
73
0
0
It's threads like this that really make me question the further prolonged existence of this measly bunch of organisms we call the human race.

There is a whole bunch of reasons why the Swedes (well I really mean Ms Ny) can be told to go to hell, due to them mishandling the cases, and breaching their own legal procedure. There are a bunch of ass-hats in America that are just itching to spread their global jurisdiction onto Assange.
Everyone starts talking about how European law doesn't allow people to be extradited if they are facing death or other grisly practices, which is lovely in it's sheer ignorance of the facts, the US not only has had many European countries extradite people to them for torture and legalised murder, but also has bases in most of these countries that practise these very same crimes.

A very experienced Swedish legal-eagle, was asked to prepare a report on the legality of the Assange case, and the many different points he explains left him with the only conclusion that Assange has done nothing wrong in his response to these charges/warrants and it is the legal team of prosecutors that are in the wrong. The fact that Sweden has 3 different legal instances of sexual assault and that none of these have a translated definite meaning is leading to all kinds of rumours, misunderstandings and down right lies.

The main facts that gets me are that;
- Marrianne Ny served as her own judge on whether the case against Assange could be reopened (that is a procedure that prevents corruption and exists in most nations.
- Assange was still in Sweden and willing to be interviewed by the authorities, when the case was reopened, but they dithered and delayed so he never attended before he left the country
- The two ladies who are the claimants in these proceedings were interviewed together, over the alledged offences, which is illegal (yet another procedure instituted to prevent corroboration of false evidence and ensure justice is done)
- Assange's name should never been released before the trial was completed, as no identities are released in sexual misconduct cases for more than obvious reasons (and that makes a hat-trick of breaches in legal procedure, just for a start)

Which is the whole reason why I think this whole sorry charade was intended as a smear campaign against Mr Assange, and when the different cables were released it only served to elevate the venom with which certain governments were calling for unpleasant things to happen to him. So no the charges weren't made to send Assange to the US but it is a possibility that it will happen, because he released the cables and properly annoyed the Yanks.

The thing that annoys me is that this silly charade was orchestrated to smear Assange and it has worked because ill-informed cretins start posting threads like this on the internet and get a bunch of slathering pillocks to blow smoke up their sphincters as to how enlightened and sensible they are for not falling for the ploys of a "rapist" and a "hypocrite". (Both of which are nonsensical things to accuse him of if you think about it.)
 

5t3v0

New member
Jan 15, 2011
317
0
0
Am I the only one who doesn't like the fact that there has been a buildup of a "Cult of personality" behind him? I mean, if something happens to him that shouldn't signal the end of free will, just increase the public will to do more among those who support him. It wouldn't end with him, is what I am saying.

I think that is what I like about the concept (note, Concept. Concepts are usually different from reality) of Anon, is that no one man gets all the glory.

I find my feeling of this strange due to my slightly-right leaning moderate views.