Julian Assange is a prick.

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
Stu35 said:
Whilst I continue to advocate that countries, in particular those with strict Islamic interpretations (the ones being used for these examples) should change their laws, I will never feel that foreigners who go to those countries and commit those crimes are the 'victims'.

You use homosexuality as an example - Now, those who LIVE in countries where homosexuality is outlawed or they're otherwise persecuted, absolutely I would support their fleeing that nation for committing a 'crime' which, in any rational and sensible society, is not a crime.

But if you go to Iran to meet a bloke for sex and they arrest you? Sorry bud, thats your own damned fault.

Do you see where I'm coming from?
Yes i do. And i agree that if you enter another country and commit a crime, even if the law is ridiculous, then it is your owned damned fault.

But i still don't fault you for trying to escape anyway. I'd call you an idiot and say "Why the f*** did you go drinking down here? That's fucking stupid dude", but I'd still applaud you if you managed to wiggle your way out of the situation.

As for the Assange case, I'd say that the the case AND the swedish rape laws both stink enough for me to understand the course of action the man has taken. When even Swedish lawyers joke that you need WRITTEN permission before sex, then something has clearly gone wrong along the way.
 

ArnRand

New member
Mar 29, 2012
180
0
0
Boudica said:
ArnRand said:
First of all, the guy sexually assaults two women
Prove it.

You can prove it, right? You're not just making conjectural remarks and regurgitating what you saw on TV, yeah? Then prove it.

If you can't prove it, you just committed libel, an illegal offense in many countries.
Obviously I can't prove it, I was perhaps being a little hyperbolic (or just plain wrong, if you want.). The guy was ACCUSED of sexually assaulting two women, and refuses to go into a court and let the jury decide if he did it or not. My guess is that he did, judging by his running away and not facing the music, but that is of course just a guess.

And, no, I don't watch the news on TV, I prefer broadsheet newspapers.
 

rokkolpo

New member
Aug 29, 2009
5,375
0
0


Nuff said.

Not nuff said: I think he's right in what he did.
And I support his right to not get boned by the American legal system, too many people want his blood for no other reason than being a tattletale. And you are allowed to be a tattletale if the person* you're ''tattling'' on did some seriously fucked up stuff.
*Or country


What I think of him personally...
He has some balls, and I respect that in today's world. And other than Anonymous, he did it without a mask. Media whoring like he didn't care. Major thumbs up for that.
 

ArnRand

New member
Mar 29, 2012
180
0
0
Boudica said:
ArnRand said:
Boudica said:
ArnRand said:
First of all, the guy sexually assaults two women
Prove it.

You can prove it, right? You're not just making conjectural remarks and regurgitating what you saw on TV, yeah? Then prove it.

If you can't prove it, you just committed libel, an illegal offense in many countries.
Obviously I can't prove it, I was perhaps being a little hyperbolic (or just plain wrong, if you want.). The guy was ACCUSED of sexually assaulting two women, and refuses to go into a court and let the jury decide if he did it or not. My guess is that he did, judging by his running away and not facing the music, but that is of course just a guess.

And, no, I don't watch the news on TV, I prefer broadsheet newspapers.
Libel is against the law. Don't be doing it, silly.
Well I don't know the law on libel very well, but, uh, I don't think I'm going to be prosecuted for it.

Also that was not really a response to my post...
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
I wonder how many people have actually followed this case close enough to understand what's going on completely, or just followed what they've read in the sun or seen on sky news.
 

Stu35

New member
Aug 1, 2011
594
0
0
rokkolpo said:
Nuff said.

Not nuff said: I think he's right in what he did.
And I support his right to not get boned by the American legal system, too many people want his blood for no other reason than being a tattletale. And you are allowed to be a tattletale if the person* you're ''tattling'' on did some seriously fucked up stuff.
*Or country
If you think thats what's actually happening, I suggest you actually look into the whole situation in depth. The very fact you mention "American legal system" (who are not in any way involved in this situation, which is between Sweden, the United Kingdom and Ecuador) says it all really.

What I think of him personally...
He has some balls
He's cowering in an embassy terrified to walk the corridors for fear that he'll be arrested, sent to Sweden, and put on trial for the crime of rape.

Any man who would flee a trial for the crime of rape doe not have 'balls'. Guilty or Innocent.



flarty said:
I wonder how many people have actually followed this case close enough to understand what's going on completely, or just followed what they've read in the sun or seen on sky news.
Wasn't something I was paying much attention to until I came upon a random article a couple of days ago via a twitter retweet. Since when I've been digging my grubby way through every piece of information I can about this whole case.

What I've found out is that 90% of the coverage is based on false assumptions, 6% is based on no assumptions (or any other kind of 'knowing what's going on' for that matter), whilst 4% is desperately trying to break some of the false assumptions.


Now, those percentages are just representative, they're not actually the result of maths, but you see what I'm getting at.
 

ArnRand

New member
Mar 29, 2012
180
0
0
rokkolpo said:


Nuff said.

Not nuff said: I think he's right in what he did.
And I support his right to not get boned by the American legal system, too many people want his blood for no other reason than being a tattletale. And you are allowed to be a tattletale if the person* you're ''tattling'' on did some seriously fucked up stuff.
*Or country


What I think of him personally...
He has some balls, and I respect that in today's world. And other than Anonymous, he did it without a mask. Media whoring like he didn't care. Major thumbs up for that.
I also support his right to not get boned by the american legal system...but he's charged with rape in SWEDEN. When you're accused of sexual assualt, I think it takes more balls to defend yourself in a trial, than to hide in the ecuadorian embassy.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

EDIT: Shit, sorry, got ninjaed. Someone else said basically the same as me.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 8, 2009
2,542
209
68
If America is supposedly so corrupt and petty to want Assange dead for outing their 'war crimes' and are so determined to believe that America is all but a dictatorship, why wouldn't they send an assassin for him? Surely it would be easier to make his death look like an accident (drained brake fluid, quick acting, hard to trace poison, blow up his house/room and make it look like a gas-leak) than to concoct a bogus lawsuit/case in a foreign country, convince said country to extradite Assange then put him on trial for another charge and fix it so that he gets the Death Penalty and is executed quickly (instead of years later as is the case with most executions).
 

kurokotetsu

Proud Master
Sep 17, 2008
428
0
0
First, I agree that he should face the charges. Maybe Swedihs laws regarding sexual assaults are too strict as some sugest (though that is deffinetly better than the opposite), but that is on no accounts a reason to brake a law (specially one that is related to such a delicate thing as sexual consent) and try to evade charges. As said, the women, if felt that an offense has been commited have the right to present charges and he has to answer to them. Maybe the renewal of the warrant is indeed linked to his "recent" fame, but even if that is the case that doesn't void the validity of said warrant. Many seem skeptic about the Sewedish legal system, but considering that said system let go their principal and confessed suspect of Magnicide because of lack of evidence (the murder of Prime Minister Olof Palme) even with certainly mediatic and political pressure, it seems one of the best systems to go and clear this up.

Also if this "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." is how the US defines treason he is not chargeable, as he ,to my poor understanding, doesn't owe allegiance the said cuntry. Still, if said charge were to be imputed, Swedish laws prohibits that he is extradicted, as their is fear of death penalty, which makes it against several international pacts that Sweden has.

As for his work in Wikileaks, I do support it in principle. THe misdeeds of coorporations and governments must be uncovered, if the policy to protect information and not release anything that may actually put lifes in danger is true. There need to be this kind of regulation to big entities.

ALso, one simple question. If the US want him so bad, why make him go to Sweden to then get him instead of just asking the British? Both are allied countries and there would be less problems to do it directly.
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
Stu35 said:
rokkolpo said:
Nuff said.

Not nuff said: I think he's right in what he did.
And I support his right to not get boned by the American legal system, too many people want his blood for no other reason than being a tattletale. And you are allowed to be a tattletale if the person* you're ''tattling'' on did some seriously fucked up stuff.
*Or country
If you think thats what's actually happening, I suggest you actually look into the whole situation in depth. The very fact you mention "American legal system" (who are not in any way involved in this situation, which is between Sweden, the United Kingdom and Ecuador) says it all really.

What I think of him personally...
He has some balls
He's cowering in an embassy terrified to walk the corridors for fear that he'll be arrested, sent to Sweden, and put on trial for the crime of rape.

Any man who would flee a trial for the crime of rape doe not have 'balls'. Guilty or Innocent.
You too seemed to have failed to look into the whole situation also, he has not been charged so would not face trial he is wanted for questioning, which he has offered to answer via video link. Sweden have declined and issued a warrant for his arrest, then started the legal battle for Assanges extradition which he fought to the bitter end, it was only after his appeal was denied , did he seek asylum in Ecuadorian embassy. Which was chosen because of the coup attempt by the us which failed a few years previously (the enemy of my enemy is my friend etc).

As for the rape charges, they are very suspect, and simply involve Assange not wearing a condom (if you go from the original story). They surely could of raised the issue at the time, and if Assange was intent on intercourse this ropey rape charge would of surely become a sexual assault charge.

As for the whole USA thing this is what he is scared of if he goes to sweeden
http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2010/12/08/julian-assange-sweden-and-u-s-extradition-treaty/

Personally I dnt like the man, and wikileaks will live on without him. But something is rotting here
 

Stu35

New member
Aug 1, 2011
594
0
0
flarty said:
You too seemed to have failed to look into the whole situation also, he has not been charged so would not face trial he is wanted for questioning, which he has offered to answer via video link.
No, he is not 'wanted for questioning', he is wanted for arrest. There is a difference, and this is why his offer to be questioned via video link has been turned down.

Once again, I point the people of the thread to this link which debunks some of the myths surrounding this case. [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition]

Sweden have declined and issued a warrant for his arrest,
The warrant was issued before his 'offer' of a video link.

then started the legal battle for Assanges extradition
Sweden did no such thing - they asked for his extradition, the United Kingdom fought the legal battle for it to take place.

which he fought to the bitter end, it was only after his appeal was denied , did he seek asylum in Ecuadorian embassy.
Which he did by getting his sheep to raise the money required to post bail so he could promptly skip it. How noble of him.


Which was chosen because of the coup attempt by the us which failed a few years previously (the enemy of my enemy is my friend etc).
You can't know that, in the same way that I can't know it was chosen merely because it is conveniently a country with no extradition treaties to Sweden or the UK, as well as having poor diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom.



As for the rape charges, they are very suspect, and simply involve Assange not wearing a condom (if you go from the original story).
Not a 'simple' matter. If a woman wants you to wear a condom, and you continue to have sex without one, you are putting her (and yourself) at serious risk of any number of STIs(not to mention pregnancy). 'Simply' having sex with a woman without a condom when she has not consented to this, is rape.

Not perhaps, as bad as violently holding them down and threatening them with a knife, which I'm sure the Swedish courts would take into account.

In any case, none of this has been proven at trial, because he refuses to stand it.


As for the whole USA thing this is what he is scared of if he goes to sweeden
http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2010/12/08/julian-assange-sweden-and-u-s-extradition-treaty/
Find me somewhere where it actually says the United States has asked for Assange to be extradited.

They've not. Even if they did, Assange has the same rights under EU and ECHR law as he has here in the UK.

He doesn't want to Ecuador because he's afraid of America, he wants there because he's afraid of Sweden.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
twistedmic said:
If America is supposedly so corrupt and petty to want Assange dead for outing their 'war crimes' and are so determined to believe that America is all but a dictatorship, why wouldn't they send an assassin for him? Surely it would be easier to make his death look like an accident (drained brake fluid, quick acting, hard to trace poison, blow up his house/room and make it look like a gas-leak) than to concoct a bogus lawsuit/case in a foreign country, convince said country to extradite Assange then put him on trial for another charge and fix it so that he gets the Death Penalty and is executed quickly (instead of years later as is the case with most executions).
You can't just kill ideas with bullets, Twistedmic. You're trying to apply twentieth century solutions to twenty-first century problems.
 

Kmadden2004

New member
Feb 13, 2010
475
0
0
Nurb said:
It was a broken condom.

Sweden considers it rape. This is all they could come up with after the case was weak enough to be dropped already.

It's BS to get him to sweden, then be disappeared into a US or UK blacksite out of the way of human rights oversight so they can ask him about those papers he released with a car battery to the nuts.
Do you really think the US is that stupid? The second Assange is extradited, he will become the most watched man on the planet, I sincerely doubt the Americans would try to "disappear" him when under that kind of scrutiny.

A show trial, maybe, but the old "Mr Assange's plan crashed over the Atlantic, no body has been found" routine just wouldn't fly in the circumstances (no pun intended).

OT: Do I think Assange is a prick? Yes.

I also agree with those here who have labelled him a coward. Whether I'd do the same thing under his circumstances is irrelevant, fact is he's been portraying himself as a paragon of truth and some champion of the people, and made some very high and mighty comments about the sacrifice some of his sources have made. Sorry, but if you're going to put yourself up on a pedestal like that, then you need to be ready to be a martyr for your own cause too.

The guy can't try to act all surprised that the US wants him to answer for his actions, and he can't use it as an excuse. What was he expecting the US to do, anyway, after he put information out on the web that could have, in all likelihood, gotten some people killed? Did he think Obama would just shake his fist and say "Ah, and we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you pesky kid!"? Sorry, but the whole "he should have immunity" thing just doesn't fly for me. He knew what he was getting himself into when he posted that information, he can't then hide under Ecuador's skirt just because the big boys want to talk to him.

I have no opinion either way on whether he is a rapist or not. As many have said, he is innocent until proven guilty. However, on the secondary debate as to whether the charges levelled against do actually fit within the legal (and/or moral) definition of rape and sexual assault; I have to say yes, they do.
 

GoaThief

Reinventing the Spiel
Feb 2, 2012
1,229
0
0
Kmadden2004 said:
Nurb said:
It was a broken condom.

Sweden considers it rape. This is all they could come up with after the case was weak enough to be dropped already.

It's BS to get him to sweden, then be disappeared into a US or UK blacksite out of the way of human rights oversight so they can ask him about those papers he released with a car battery to the nuts.
Do you really think the US is that stupid? The second Assange is extradited, he will become the most watched man on the planet, I sincerely doubt the Americans would try to "disappear" him when under that kind of scrutiny.
What happened to Bradley Manning?

Hasn't he been tortured for the last 7 months or thereabouts, a fact his lawyers are looking to use so the charges against him get dropped?
 

Spectrre

New member
Mar 7, 2011
66
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Something that is seen easily, and easily leaked? Not an actual secret. Nothing actually important gets leaked by an internet crusader.
So this didn't happen? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
I watched it after someone in here linked it and apparently you didn't notice it, or refused to.

Are you really going to bold-facedly claim that this wasn't important? The murder of innocent people and hurting children.


OT: I don't agree or condone everything Assange has done so far. But I do not think him a coward or a bad person for protecting himself from bullshit charges and what would come of them if he were to face up to them. As has been stated many times in this thread the Swedish rape-laws are ridiculous. And I don't buy that they suddenly want to ask him about it now or that that questioning needs to take place in Sweden, for that matter.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, or rather, I'm not a fan of the image that title carries. Calling the charges flimsy and suspecting (with fairly good reason) that this is just a way to get him in the US governments hands definitely sounds like a conspiracy, but I don't want to use that name for it because to me, it implies that this is extremely far fetched and ludicrous. And I think it's fairly evident that this isn't at all far fetched.

And to make things even worse, I've read in several newspapers (this was about a week ago so I'm uncertain how accurate this still is) that the UK government wants to go and grab him from inside the Ecuadorian embassy. Isn't it just a little bit insane that they would even consider doing this for a man who is only wanted for questioning? It's like they think he's Osama Bin Laden incarnate hiding in there.

Captcha: perfect world Heh..
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Therumancer said:
ArnRand said:
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.
Well, my basic opinion is that Wikileaks and Julian are both problems. My big issue with them is that they tend to release classified data, things like the personal notes and covert opinions of diplomats. What's more the site seems to be pretty much biased against the major Western powers in terms of what information it releases and when. I don't mind crusading journalists and such, but when it comes to some of the information he's obtained and put up I think he's crossed too many lines. Honestly a lot of what he's done borders on treason against a number of nations, and I suppose I can see why he's avoiding prosecution, while I doubt it would happen some of the stuff he's released could arguably get him a death penelty (though this is a long debate I won't get into, there are things that freedom of the press and freedom of speech do not cover). That's before you get into the sexual assault charges that I figure go with him feeling untouchable, I mean if you can release some of the stuff he has the way he has, and potentially put millions of lives in danger, what's a bit of sexual assault?

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the US needs to stop respecting a lot of these territorial agreements for asylum given how they are being used, to be honest I don't much care about damaging relations with nations that might shield someone like this, because a nation willing to do that isn't worthwhile anyway.

I'll also say that having looked at cases like this, and Kim Dotcom (which someone else mentioned) I think a big part of the problem is that very wealthy individuals, or those with something to trade, can buy politicians outright, and use them to pretty much screw with the extradition process. Sure the US might give a lot to some of these nations, but politicians who are being directly given thousands or millions of dollars to use their authority can be a big obstacle. From the way it looked to me Kim Dotcom for example was pretty much paying New Zealand under the table for shelter, leading to the need to concoct reasons to justify getting him that went beyond belief, when we should have just kicked the door down. If Sweden provides Assange asylum (I've heard mixed things about them doing so) I don't think we should even play that game this time and just do what we need to do.

.. and again, yes I know many will disagree with all, or most of this.
I said this once, I will say it again.


right because America is the ONLY country with spy networks.

China, Russia, and practically everyone else knows everything Assange leaked. Every. Damn. Thing.

If the information was thrown around like it wasn't important, found, and leaked, you bet other countries would already know. They are not stupid.

If you don't hide it well, its obviously not a actual secret. If these things were truly secrets, they would have never been leaked.
Sorry "they already knew that" is not an excuse since that is in no way a guarantee. If the goverment is keeping stuff like this secret, it's secret for a reason, not something people are justified to scream from the rooftops (so to speak).

You have your opinion of course, but I really don't think other nation's intelligence agencies knew all of this, or had this kind of confirmation.