Julian Assange is a prick.

[chadachada123]

Please, the US pinned the sexual assault on him, I have no doubt he's innocent, it came out of nowhere. America is just butt hurt and wants to make an example of him.

It's equally possible that he is guilty and didn't want to face his crimes so he did his best to make this about some conspiracy theory nonsense.

See? I can make assertions without having to prove them too.

It still doesn't change the fact that a normal person would NEVER be extradited just on two technically-assault charges that haven't even been formally filed.

It's all politics, just Sweden abusing their powers to appease the United States/others.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

I can't stand the bloke... and it is good to see that others feel the same way...

I also massively disagreed with Wikileaks... I don't care if it was corperate stuff, but government stuff is kept out of the public eye for a reason... a lot of stuff that was on the Wikileaks site gave a lot of details about troops and capabilities that could put lives in danger...

Please, Assange didn't release anything that could have harmed troops, he released things the US government didn't want people seeing. Stuff like this:
He's the victim of a massive scale character assassination, hell, one of the women he "raped" was bragging about being with him on Twitter AFTER they had sex. Does that really sound like something a rape victim would do?

 

[Alexnader]

I'm just going to leave this here, even though I doubt it'll change anyone's opinion. Just think it's worth bearing in mind.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
"Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly "persecution" or a "witch-hunt"

Also I may be wrong, but I heard that he had sex with the woman while she was unconcious, which while it may or may not be rape, is definitely a bit creepy. Again, I don't know if this is true or not, but if "the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law" as the article says, I think there's probably a bit more to it than a broken condom.

As I said, I doubt this will change anyone's mind, since Assange's supporters are just going to keep repeating the "It's a set up/Courts = The Establishment and, therefore, The Enemy" line. One thing I will say is that Assange knows he's onto a good thing with his 'The US is out to get me' trump card. He's certainly playing it a lot.

While the woman was "unconscious" (asleep) when sex was initiated, she woke up to it and they continued. Of course that could still constitute rape, however saying she was "unconscious" makes him out to be a lot worse.

Anyway there are a lot of inconsistencies with how this case has progressed. For one thing both women are being represented by a single lawyer, bringing one case against him. This is apparently unusual as the woman with the weaker allegations can compromise the entire case. They are also being represented by a corporate lawyer rather than the normal kind of prosecutor.

Furthermore the Swiss police took their statements together, which usually never happens. As far as I'm aware it's pretty standard practice to take statements individually for fairly obvious reasons.

There's of course more than that, however those are some of the procedural anomalies. Personally I'm on the fence about this, the entire situation is basically a legal and diplomatic dead-lock. I don't think it's fair for any typical escapist forum denizen to pass any kind of judgement on the matter.

 

[ScaryAlmond]

Assange is to me a good man, he did not assult those two women and he founded a website which finds faults in those with bad business morals. I do think he acts like dick according to his coworkers

We don't know whether or not he assaulted those two women because he's fleeing from an arrest warrant that would bring him to court to answer the charges.

I'm sick to death of the internet's love affair with their great hero of truth, who is himself fleeing from it and hiding so as not to fulfill a basic obligation of society.I know he thinks he's in the right because he sees a vast global conspiracy orchestrated by the US government to arrest him and try him for Wikileaks, but the thing is, I don't care about that. The situation he has built for himself there is entirely his own doing. It's the bed he's made.

I'm not interested in speculating (with no evidence personally on hand or presented yet in court) on whether or not the rape accusations reflect legit occurrences or not. I'm not interested in giving an ounce of credence to conspiracy theories. What I want to know is, how does the world not see this man for the coward he so clearly is?

A truly brave man who really believed his own rhetoric would answer the charges. Face them in court and destroy them if they be false; I can't imagine he'd hurt for legal counsel. And if the US tries to nab him, so be it; there's legal challenges to that too. And if it's determined that such an arrest is in fact legal, than so be it. Being noble is about facing the consequences of your actions. How nice of him, though, that he is enough of a celebrity that he can offer himself up as a political game chip to Ecuador and stay out of reach of the Swedish prosecutor, so we may never know if he really is a rapist scumbag.

Well I can't say he's a rapist. But a scumbag? Almost certainly. If he actually stepped outside, faced the music, proved the rape charges unfounded, and then weathered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with some aplomb and courage I would admire the man. But he's a sniveling coward and it drives me up a wall seeing him granted hero status by the internet.

To clarify Julian Assange has not been charged with any crime he is wanted for questioning by Swedish authorities.
You guys in America really don't get the whole story.
THe major issue is that Julian did not use a condom the sex was consensual that's something that hasn't been widely reported the case is weak at best.
The charges are pretty weak.
The major reason why going to Sweden is such a big deal is because they have previously shown that they willingly extradite people to the US.
While I personally think that he should go to Sweden now due to the much lower risk of the US taking on such a high profile case.
However considering the US's activities over the last 10 years.
(calling everyone they kill a combatant, covering up wrongful oversea's killings eg collateral murder video the one that wiki leaks revealed
drones in Pakistan and recent war with Whistleblowers)
There is still a risk there

Personally I think he's a bit of a douche but since when is that a crime.
remember this exact method has been used by governments for years when it comes to whistle-blowers a sexual crime is usually the first to come out as it helps to lower that person's reputation.
Personally I'd prefer he go to Sweden and face the charges without being extradited.
He has said that he would if they can garentee that he won't be sent to the US but they still have not agreed to anything which is the whole case for his Asylum.
People have got to stop assuming he is guilty as you are only getting the media's take on this which has been fairly Bias which can be taken from the Guilty before proven attitudes.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Julian Assange is a prick. First of all, the guy sexually assaults two women, then he says some bullshit conspiracy theory about being charged in the us, and fucks off to Britain. He isn?t some kind vigilante freedom fighter, the guy just did something illegal and seems to think he?s above the law. Sweden has said explicitly that if he gets taken there they won?t send him to the US. If he?s innocent of sexual assault, then he should fucking go in a court and prove it.

Now all of you may agree with me (probably not?). But the guy gets celebrity endorsements, supporters in anonymous masks outside the embassy, and the help of Ecuador (who are fucking idiots by the way.) I don?t understand at all.

So yeah. Wikileaks is great. Julian Assange is a prick.

Assange is the only REAL reporter in the world. The only one with enough balls and integrity to speak the truth that we're being denied access to on a daily basis. Everyone knows that he wouldn't have a fair trial in Sweden. They worked very hard to try to find something to charge him with, and sexual assault that's not even a sexual assault is the best they could come up with. There's also a big chance that he would be extradited to the US.

How can you not see what they're trying to do to that man? The UK government is ready to break the fundamental international law in order to extradite him to Sweden. Like he's some kind of high threat terrorist. They want to break into the Ecuador embassy to extradite some guy based on sexual assault charges? THEY ARE THAT OBVIOUS ABOUT IT!

Do you know that under international law, Ecuador embassy is a part of Ecuador territory? Breaking in is not just illegal, it's an act of war!

 

[Patrick Buck]

I don't think he actually did sexually assualt anyone. Find it a LITTLE bit odd, how he gets accused after Wikileaks puts up something that would annoy the US goverment. Nice. Real good 'merica.

 

[mike1921]

I do think he is an asshat for many reasons that have already been mentioned here, and I think he should stand trial in Sweden (if he's innocent then he should go prove it).

However, I personally think he OUGHT to be extradited to the US and face the music for wikileaks. I really don't understand the hard-on that the internet has for that.

Governments have secrets, dirty secrets. ALL OF THEM. YOURS, MINE, and of course the USA. That doesn't mean some little shit should go and publish them on the web like that. That just puts people in danger, and his sources can face treason charges... great.

Oh, and Ecuador has just made the list.

Name something wikileaks posted that put people in danger.

Governments have dirty secrets, that doesn't mean we should accept them and allow them to keep secrets from us. The fact that we have secrets of the level that motivate revolutions (the Arab Spring is considered to be partially caused by wikileaks) goes to show just how little we should trust our government with secrets.

I can't stand the bloke... and it is good to see that others feel the same way...

I also massively disagreed with Wikileaks... I don't care if it was corperate stuff, but government stuff is kept out of the public eye for a reason...

So people don't know the evil shit they've been up to mostly

 

[Supertegwyn]

For one thing, I cannot find any evidence of the case being withdrawn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8344464/Julian-Assange-rape-accusations-timeline.html

Secondly, I hope Julian Assange burns in hell.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

While the woman was "unconscious" (asleep) when sex was initiated, she woke up to it and they continued. Of course that could still constitute rape, however saying she was "unconscious" makes him out to be a lot worse.

I wasn't trying to smear him, only repeating what I'd heard. Like I said, I wasn't sure how accurate it was.

Personally I'm on the fence about this, the entire situation is basically a legal and diplomatic dead-lock. I don't think it's fair for any typical escapist forum denizen to pass any kind of judgement on the matter.

I'd like to be on the fence, but all the people on either side of the fence keep shaking it so much I'm in danger of falling off. I don't mind people being suspicious of the case, but what's really annoying me are the tinfoil-hatted conspiracy nuts who are raving about it being a set-up while completely ignoring the actual facts.

 

[ikabodjohn]

Sweden just needs to say they won't extradite him to the USA, then we can get the weasel faced (alleged) sex offender albino out of the UK.

 

[Jonluw]

I haven't looked into the case, but what I can say is this:
If I knew I'd never raped anyone, and suddenly earlier dismissed rape charges were brought up against me right after I'd pissed off the world's governments, I sure as hell wouldn't let them take me to court.
You can be damn certain I'd hide away like Assange is doing, because chances I'd be able to prove my innocence would be miniscule.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

A guy who advocates for transparency but is incredibly secretive about his personal life...

He advocates for transparency of the government. Not for transparency of everyone's personal life. So what if he likes to keep his personal life, well, personal? How does that make him a hypocrite?

Yep, an idiot, hypocrite, and rapist all rolled into one. Not the kinda guy I can support personally.

Congratulations. You are brainwashed.

Oh, and he's weak looking.

Really? How do you justify this nonsense?


It's amazing how much the people still trust the mainstream media. They keep lying to you and you trust them without a second thought. It's sad. It's tragic, actually.

And then a person comes along who wants to expose the liars. To tell the world what's really going on. To tell you that you're being lied to, and you hate him for it? Stay classy, humanity.

 

[wrightguy0]

I've always felt that Assange is an ass. He is one of those guy who just has an axe to grind and doesn't really care care about what the consequences of his actions may be. That said, I think that something is very fishy about the case suddenly being re-opened at the time that it was, its just too convenient to be pure chance.

those were my thoughts too, the case was dropped, for all we know he already answered to the charges against him. The Timing of the case is just too damn specific to be anything but a smokescreen. he releases thousands of documents that embarrass the world, with the US as the mos specific target, then suddenly a case of alleged sexual assault that had been dropped is reopened several days after the leak. love him or hate him you can't argue that something seems fishy

Didn't one of the girls also admit she had lied about being assaulted?

 

[xen0blade]

@Adam Jensen:
Embassies are NOT sovereign territory. The host country can revoke ANY diplomatic status at any time. Usually, however, they don't, mostly due to the sheer amount of trouble that it would cause. This is called the Vienna Convention. I urge you to read it so you know what you're talking about.

@Anyone else who mentioned it:
No, Julian Assange has not been charged. He is, in fact, wanted for questioning. The reason for this is simple: under Swedish law, once Assange is charged a trial MUST be held within 14 days. If the trial isn't held then it's dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot charge him with that crime for that event again. That is why they haven't charged him.

Also, it is against the law to deny ANY request for extradition unless there is valid reason to do so. If Assange is magically wanted in conjunction for, say, murder, grand theft auto, or anything else in the United States, they by law the Swedish/UK/whatever authorities have a duty to assess whether or not they feel the charges are valid. IF they are then the extradition is arranged, although rarely do extraditions even happen in the first place. Finally, an extradition cannot happen if the host country would not have charged the individual for the crime in the first place. In short, what Assange is ACCUSED of doing constitutes rape under UK law, so the judge authorized the extradition. That's how it works.

 

[Amaror]

I don't have a real opinion about this, but when i read some of the things you guys say, well i really wanna see how YOU would react in his situation:
"Hmm, i am charged for something and they might extradite me to the Usa, where i might be killed..."
"Oh fuck it, i might die of it, but going to court is the right thing to do!"

 

[Neonit]

i dont understand it. government keeps telling me that if i have done nothing wrong, i have nothing to hide, and thus i should reveal everything about myself. but when the tables are turned, then there suddenly IS reason for secets.... huh!

also, "they wont if death penalty is a threat" - listen, in politics, there are no rules. they will simply say "noo, we no kill him! we just waterboard them for 5 year, they die by themselves!"

this whole thing is fishy as all hells. anyone who thinks sweden will not release him because of some treaty is naive. iirc they did already extradite someone who faced death penalty or torture.

he might be a prick. you might not like him. i for one have no feelings one way or another, besides the fact that he IS under danger of political persecution. the extend of this danger is maybe debatable, but it does exist.

 

[ScaryAlmond]

I don't have a real opinion about this, but when i read some of the things you guys say, well i really wanna see how YOU would react in his situation:
"Hmm, i am charged for something and they might extradite me to the Usa, where i might be killed..."
"Oh fuck it, i might die of it, but going to court is the right thing to do!"

What I read said that the Swedish Government cannot extradite a person to any country wherein they would face the death penalty, since that would be a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights

I don't think anyone thinks that he will be killed it's too high profile what could happen though is that he could be sentenced to life imprisonment or indefinitely detained without charge under the NDAA.
Personally I think the latter is more likely as it's easier to sentence someone if your the judge and jury and prosecutor.
These are examples of what would happen if he is extradited.
Sweden has said they will not extradite if there is a chance of execution which is them repeating the laws they have to obey.

 

[MiskWisk]

While I do feel Assange's concerns are valid, I also agree with the statement he is a prick. I personally compare him to a tabloid journalist stereotype of not caring about anyone other than himself and no secret is too damning to be released. I feel he should be charged since his actions have directly put soldiers, international relations, civilians and people who have aided the efforts of NATO in Afghanistan and other areas. To me, he is a man with no concept of why a secret is not spread about. I understand leaking brutality of soldiers and that it should be done and not hidden, but most of what he leaked should not be common knowledge.

As to whether the case about him being a rapist or not, well I go for innocent until proven guilty but I will say he isn't helping himself.

[presumably you mean 'at risk']

Evidence?

Also I may be wrong, but I heard that he had sex with the woman while she was unconcious, which while it may or may not be rape, is definitely a bit creepy.

So you admit yourself that it probably isn't rape, and considering the context in which the situation occurred, it definitely isn't, but then you say that it is 'definitely a bit creepy'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html

Wikileaks outs Afghan sympathisers. Bearing in mind how terrorist groups react to small things, they are likely going to view this as treason. I personally would not like to be in the situation where my name and address is given to terrorists along with the information that I support their enemies.

From the article: "One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live."

While soldiers, international relations and civilians in America can be protected, it is much harder for Americans to protect people outside America.

 

[Neonit]

snip

There is also the possibility that he is a rapist. That needs to be conclusively disproven before I giving a shit about his political problems.

oh no doubt about that, he should stand before court. But you cant expect someone to make a stand at court, defend his case, all this in fear that he will be deported to USA to god knows which one of torture camps.

that would not be a fair trial, in that case war criminals get better treatment and thats just wrong.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

He won't go because he IS guilty. Unless you have solid evidence Sweden is corrupt rather than, y'know, trying to demonstrate the criminal justice system would you kindly stop pretending Sweden is subordinate to America? They aren't and most likely wont extradite since hes probably spending time in Swedish prison. And if he was scared of extradition would BRITAIN be the best place to go? We're pretty friendly with America and Europe.