Julian Assange is a prick.

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

@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.

I didn't say it's a sovereign territory. I said it is considered a sovereign territory under international law. It's called a legal fiction. And of course it's only for as long as they have the permission to be there. But even if US government revokes their diplomatic status they still have to provide everyone inside with the safe transport back to their country. Even in the event of war between the two nations. So they still wouldn't have the legal right to take Assange as he's under the protection of foreign diplomats.

 

[Stu35]

Well, according to certain muslim laws in the middle east (in the more barbarian countries), we here in the west are all guilty of being heathens and should by their laws be purged or punished. Why should we be exempt from that?

Because we aren't in those countries. When we do go to those countries, we abide by their laws or face the punishment associated with it.

Look up recent cases of westerners being jailed in Dubai for an idea of what I'm talking about.

Obvious reason is obvious: Because the only law that truly matters in this world is Darwins.

Every country in the world has different laws that they believe to be fair. We here in the west believe that our laws are superior to those of the east and vice versa. If you happened to be in a middle eastern country one day, and got charged with something that by western standards were ridiculous but carries a harsh penalty down there, and you got the chance to escape back to the west, would you do it? I bet you would. But by your own logic, why should you be exempt from that? )

Would I flee back to the west, pull every string available to avoid getting my hands cut off or Imprisoned for drinking in public? Of course I would.

Should I be exempt from their laws? Of course not, that's why I don't go to Saudi Arabia or the UAE and drink in public.

Same way that, if Julian Assange didn't want to go to jail for Rape in Sweden, he shouldn't have (allegedly) raped two girls in Sweden.

Your argument is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but it doesn't really work.

At the end of the day, laws are just an attempted appliance of power within a specified region. As human beings, we typically fight for what we believe is right. Assange fights for freedom because he believes he is being set up,

No, he doesn't fight for freedom - he hides in an embassy and accepts asylum from a country that would grant him very few freedoms. Why he does this? We can't possibly know - maybe he does GENUINELY believe he'll go to Guantanamo Bay or something, or maybe he raped two women, we can't know until he faces trial.

the Swedish government fights to get their hands on him because they believe he is a rapist, and everyone else has different things they fight for. And there is NO supernatural power in the world that says that one is more right than the other.

Whilst I agree with your point, I fail to see the relevance in this particular argument, you argue that Assange thinking that rape in Sweden being illegal is as ridiculous as we in the west find drinking in public being illegal in Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, but as I've said - reductio ad absurdum, and it doesn't work because one crime is a devastating physical and emotional attack on a person(or people, as the case may be), whilst one is a fairly victimless crime.

In any case, it's an irrelevance because when travelling to other countries, I find out what their laws are, and either don't go or obey their laws. Sure if I did, inadvertently break a law I'd do my best to avoid prosecution, however that would not make me right - and as alluded to my crime would probably be a minor, victimless crime like speeding or drinking in public, I wouldn't go rape somebody. Nor would you (I'd hope).

To be fair i'm not saying its all one huge movie-type conspiricy. Personaly i think he should go to trial. I'm just dubious over how fair it would truly be.

Fair one.

For what it's worth, I reckon he'd get a fairer trial in Sweden than anywhere else on the planet. They're not exactly known for their corruption up there.

 

[itsthesheppy]

He didn't rape anyone, he had consensual sex and allegedly didn't use a condom despite the requests of the women. It makes him an ass of a person, not a crazed sex fiend who goes around penetrating helpless women for the laughs.

You might need to brush up on what you consider rape. Rape is sex without consent. If a woman says she will consent to have sex with you only if you wear a condom, and then you have sex with her without one without her knowing, or with her knowing and just not caring about her opinion, that is rape.

Now, whether or not he actually did any of that we don't know. Me might have, he might not have. The reason we don't know is because he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy because he's a sniveling coward.

 

[Athinira]

Because we aren't in those countries. When we do go to those countries, we abide by their laws or face the punishment associated with it.

...or escape if we believe their laws are ridiculous.

To pull up my own example earlier from this thread, i talked about countries where homosexuality carries a harsh penalty (up to death somewhere). Now you could argue that people should just avoid being homosexuals if they live there (just like we would have to avoid drinking . I'd on the other hand argue that people charged with homosexuality within the country have all the right in the world to try to escape, and i wouldn't fault them for it, just like i don't fault Assange for trying to escape a court case in a country where the laws and the odds are stacked against him.

Bottom line is that we all don't always get to chose what laws we have to adhere to, and if we believe that we are being wronged, then we should fight for what we believe is right. If you are charged with something, but you trust the justice system in the country you are charged in, then by all means go to court. If you don't trust the justice system, then by all means, attempt to flee. I won't fault you for it (just like i don't fault Assange), but i wouldn't necessarily recommend it either. At the end of the day, you should just do what you PERSONALLY believe is right. Just remember to consider the consequences. I'm sure Assange has

Whilst I agree with your point, I fail to see the relevance in this particular argument, you argue that Assange thinking that rape in Sweden being illegal is as ridiculous as we in the west find drinking in public being illegal in Saudi Arabia is ridiculous, but as I've said - reductio ad absurdum, and it doesn't work because one crime is a devastating physical and emotional attack on a person(or people, as the case may be), whilst one is a fairly victimless crime.

Except the "criminal", who is a victim of the law. If you do the drinking crime in Saudi Arabia, even though it is a "victimless" crime in the sense that you're the only guy involved with it, I'd still classify you as a victim - not of a crime, but of a ridiculous system.

Or the homosexuality example above. Homosexuality is a victimless crime in the countries where it is forbidden, but I'd consider the homosexual the victim of the system.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

You'd have to be really thick to not see that the whole sexual assault thing is a setup to prosecute him on the USA's soil.

I agree, bro. It's the Illuminati. They put microchips in his oranges and used their cold war spy satellites to beam mind control rays into those women to file those claims. It's all because of the JFK "assassination", which we all know was an alien cover-up.

Hang on, I had my stack of crazy person notebooks around here somewhere, I'll post more once I review my notes.

Actually they go out and do it in plain sight [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html], with their balls sitting on the dead center of your forehead. The truth of the matter whether the truth ever sees the light of day at all, only becomes clear many decades down the line. So compared with hawking an entire art movement that more closely resembles a bowel movement, setting up Julian Assange with a honey pot on sexual assault charges could be dismissed as being a little too pedestrian for the likes of the CIA.

Now if the CIA was involved, then I must say that I'm honestly a little disappointed that they didn't leave something for future generations to point and laugh at. Something completely crazy, like knocking up a honey pot using DNA harvested from a toothbrush.

The Ecuador asylum bid was a brilliant and shrewd move on behalf of Mr Assange. And by brilliant and shrewd I do mean, might result in armed conflict taking hundreds, possibly thousands of lives. Whether you like the man or not, he is playing the game like a boss by targeting the United States and British alliance in one of it's areas of greatest weakness. By seeking asylum in Ecuador, he serves not only to enlist the political leverage of her close political ally Venezuela, but might also manage to score the help of Argentina and her allies as well, because remember they're still calling the Falkland Islands the Malvina Islands to this day.

Ballsy, also really stupid, but ballsy. He might actually get assassinated if he keeps this sort of thing up.

They had it nicely wrapped up too. Whether Julian Assange ended up successfully defending himself from the accusations, sitting in a Swedish jail, an American jail or shot, buried and shipped back to his mother in Australia, it was a narrative that the US couldn't lose.

If the Americans catch him, justice is served one way or another. Win. If he gets convicted by the Swedish courts, all that anyone will ever remember is that he was a rapist. Win. He successfully defends himself in court and walks free then he was crazy nutter all along. Win.

It was literally a scenario that the US couldn't lose. Until Assange rewrote the scenario.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Were he a real "freedom fighter" and "truth seeker" and person of great humility, he'd stand up and face the charges like a man and fight them, not run away scared.
Very few people who run from arrests are not guilty.
Also, while the business practices were alright, posting classified info on operatives (giving their names and faces and potentially putting them in harms way) and troop movements wasn't right.
Getting people killed or hurt or even putting them in that place is just as bad as a government that does shady things (which all governments do anyway...).

 

[Stu35]

Bottom line is that we all don't always get to chose what laws we have to adhere to, and if we believe that we are being wronged, then we should fight for what we believe is right.

I agree - Assange should totally go to Sweden and fight for his right to rape.

Except the "criminal", who is a victim of the law. If you do the drinking crime in Saudi Arabia, even though it is a "victimless" crime in the sense that you're the only guy involved with it, I'd still classify you as a victim - not of a crime, but of a ridiculous system.

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?


In any case, I don't see how this is relevant to the Assange case, given that the charge is Rape, and would be had he committed it in pretty much any other country in the world (especially the west).

If he was wanted by the Swedes for Any of these crimes [http://www.stupidlaws.com/laws/countries/sweden/], then I might have a bit of sympathy (but not much, Assange is still a tool).

 

[Athinira]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.