Jump to content

The Assange/Wikileaks/Manning Thread


Ads

Recommended Posts

IF he tried to have sex with her without a condom without her permission, and while she was sleeping at that, is very much raping.

On the last question I can't say anything for sure, but I do know that you shouldn't count it out. We've been taking sexual crimes more and more serious in the last 10-20 years, and I think we're among the leading countries in that area.

Can you say that you're not at all biased towards this man as you think he's done something good with the wikileaks? So biased that you want this to be a very dodgy case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWI was the outcome of more than hundreds of years of conflicts in Europe. Have you heard about an expression called "the long 19th century"? It began in 1789 and ended in 1945. But that's a whole other topic.
How does this disprove the idea that more transparent diplomacy would have allowed the possibility of a different outcome?

The fact that European borders were effectively unchanged after the conflict kindof points towards diplomatic failure as a cause, and there is no shortage of historians who agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that European borders were effectively unchanged after the conflict kindof points towards diplomatic failure as a cause, and there is no shortage of historians who agree.

Ok..... there is no connection between WWI and the Wikileaks/Assange stuff. BUT I have to correct you're history.

Go away and google "The Treaty of Versailles." I think you will find some fairly large changes of European borders..... most of which were utlimately responsible for the kick off in '39.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF he tried to have sex with her without a condom without her permission, and while she was sleeping at that, is very much raping.

Hardly a rape in the accepted sense. If she had gone straight to the cops, or even gone to them the next day I might agree with you. Instead she was sending text messages about how she was hanging out with her alleged "rapist". I don't think I'm some kind of sexual monster for saying that if two people willingly sleep together and the idea of having sex with a condom is agreed on, whatever might happen after that is between the two people concerned and should not involve the police. And it didn't involve the police until the woman's feelings were hurt after the fact.

On the last question I can't say anything for sure, but I do know that you shouldn't count it out. We've been taking sexual crimes more and more serious in the last 10-20 years, and I think we're among the leading countries in that area.
Well it's interesting that one of the first victims of this cutting-edge justice happens to be wanted by the US.

Can you say that you're not at all biased towards this man as you think he's done something good with the wikileaks? So biased that you want this to be a very dodgy case?
Mate, really, it is a dodgy case. I encourage you to watch the documentary and make your own mind up. I do believe Wikileaks is overall a force for good. If this case is pursued, it WILL bring Assange down, and it will not result in a serious conviction, if any at all. And the world will be a poorer place for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a rape in the accepted sense. If she had gone straight to the cops, or even gone to them the next day I might agree with you. Instead she was sending text messages about how she was hanging out with her alleged "rapist". I don't think I'm some kind of sexual monster for saying that if two people willingly sleep together and the idea of having sex with a condom is agreed on, whatever might happen after that is between the two people concerned and should not involve the police. And it didn't involve the police until the woman's feelings were hurt after the fact.

In your "accepted sense" anyway. If thats what Swedish law says... thats what the law is. The alleged offense took place in Sweden.

If it is such a trumped up charge with no basis - why isn't he on the first plane to Stockholm fighting for his reputation? Surely this would be fitting for the glorious defender of truth and openness? But no, instead he his hiding in the Embassy of some grubby South American banana republic who's own record on open government and honesty is hardly beyond reproach. A frightened little nobody scared of the consequences of his "mission"

An attention seeking waste of oxygen - and no more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that European borders were effectively unchanged after the conflict kindof points towards diplomatic failure as a cause, and there is no shortage of historians who agree.

Ok..... there is no connection between WWI and the Wikileaks/Assange stuff. BUT I have to correct you're history.

Go away and google "The Treaty of Versailles." I think you will find some fairly large changes of European borders..... most of which were utlimately responsible for the kick off in '39.

Astonishingly, I've heard of the Treaty of Versailles. I used the word "effectively", so you should probably just disagree and not give a history lesson ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a rape in the accepted sense. If she had gone straight to the cops, or even gone to them the next day I might agree with you. Instead she was sending text messages about how she was hanging out with her alleged "rapist". I don't think I'm some kind of sexual monster for saying that if two people willingly sleep together and the idea of having sex with a condom is agreed on, whatever might happen after that is between the two people concerned and should not involve the police. And it didn't involve the police until the woman's feelings were hurt after the fact.

In your "accepted sense" anyway. If thats what Swedish law says... thats what the law is. The alleged offense took place in Sweden.

If it is such a trumped up charge with no basis - why isn't he on the first plane to Stockholm fighting for his reputation? Surely this would be fitting for the glorious defender of truth and openness? But no, instead he his hiding in the Embassy of some grubby South American banana republic who's own record on open government and honesty is hardly beyond reproach. A frightened little nobody scared of the consequences of his "mission"

An attention seeking waste of oxygen - and no more.

Well, no convincing you then :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF he tried to have sex with her without a condom without her permission, and while she was sleeping at that, is very much raping.

Hardly a rape in the accepted sense. If she had gone straight to the cops, or even gone to them the next day I might agree with you. Instead she was sending text messages about how she was hanging out with her alleged "rapist". I don't think I'm some kind of sexual monster for saying that if two people willingly sleep together and the idea of having sex with a condom is agreed on, whatever might happen after that is between the two people concerned and should not involve the police. And it didn't involve the police until the woman's feelings were hurt after the fact.

On the last question I can't say anything for sure, but I do know that you shouldn't count it out. We've been taking sexual crimes more and more serious in the last 10-20 years, and I think we're among the leading countries in that area.
Well it's interesting that one of the first victims of this cutting-edge justice happens to be wanted by the US.

Can you say that you're not at all biased towards this man as you think he's done something good with the wikileaks? So biased that you want this to be a very dodgy case?
Mate, really, it is a dodgy case. I encourage you to watch the documentary and make your own mind up. I do believe Wikileaks is overall a force for good. If this case is pursued, it WILL bring Assange down, and it will not result in a serious conviction, if any at all. And the world will be a poorer place for it.

Seriously, you have to accept that in this country that is seen as a rape. It's in the law. Guilty or not, that is the law.

Just speculating, but the woman could've told a police what happened and then got told that it is clear cut rape, which she might've not known that it was. Of course she would've felt violated after that and wanted to press charges. It doesn't matter if he or she knew about that law, it's still a crime. You have to understand that.

And please, a documenatary? Is that what you're basing all this on? You can prove anything with a "documentary".

And again, the WWI, and consequently the WWII, was the effect of a long chain things that happened before that. Very long. EU was founded to prevent war between France and Germany who'd fought numerous of wars with each other through the centuries. Wikileaks probably isn't the all good thing that you seem to believe.

I like you mate, I really do, but this time I think you're too narrow minded. Which I don't think you use to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe Wikileaks is overall a force for good. If this case is pursued, it WILL bring Assange down, and it will not result in a serious conviction, if any at all. And the world will be a poorer place for it.

This is really the heart of the matter. You believe Wikileaks and therefore Mr Assange to be serving a higher purpose. I think that's very naive but each to their own. The problem is that your admiration is actually blinding you to the evidence that has been posted over the last few pages to refute your arguments that he did nothing wrong.

Under Swedish law the man appears to have committed rape. Whatever your personal views of the Milky Bar Kid, you should as a decent human being want him to answer those charges and prove his innocence - or otherwise.

That's called justice, a concept I'd imagine you would wish to see upheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's called justice, a concept I'd imagine you would wish to see upheld.

Put it this way: I'd sooner see (for example) George W Bush face justice for what he's done than Assange for what he may have done. Just something about the scale of the misdeeds that sets that priority for me.

And yet somehow I think Assange will be the one to get the full attention of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, you have to accept that in this country that is seen as a rape. It's in the law. Guilty or not, that is the law.

Just speculating, but the woman could've told a police what happened and then got told that it is clear cut rape, which she might've not known that it was. Of course she would've felt violated after that and wanted to press charges. It doesn't matter if he or she knew about that law, it's still a crime. You have to understand that.

Well, surely if we're being broad-minded we are right to question the validity and applicability of the law?

If we're still being broad-minded, we might also be asking the bigger question: Why has a minor case like this come to extradition, and would it do so if JA wasn't such a high profile individual with powerful enemies?

And please, a documenatary? Is that what you're basing all this on? You can prove anything with a "documentary".
Please at least watch the doco before you write it off, especially if you're going to call me narrow-minded.

And thanks for your other comment, I like you too mate, but exactly who's being narrow-minded is rather open to debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're still being broad-minded, we might also be asking the bigger question: Why has a minor case like this come to extradition,

Because he will not answer the accusations in Sweden voluntarily!! By the way, do you really interpret rape as a minor case??

and would it do so if JA wasn't such a high profile individual with powerful enemies?

Yes, rape is a serious crime so any such allegations have to be answered regardless of who they are made against.

Also your attempt at moral equivalence between Assange's rape allegation and George W Bush's record is simply misdirection. Assange is wanted for questioning by legitimate authorities in connection with alleged rape. No formal allegations by a legitimate legal authority have been made against Bush - I'm afraid George Galloway and the Stop The War Coalition really don't count.

Do you now accept that under Swedish law Julian Assange has a case to answer and that he should be compelled to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said from page 1 of this thread that I'm not 100% sure of the extradition legalities, I am not pretending to be an expert, I am encouraging discussion on the subject, but finding that people can't see past the dodgy Swedish case against him.

Considering the most important basis of your argument and the reason you think there is a 'dodgy case' is based around whether he is more likely to be extradited from Sweden - which he isn't. I'd say to have a strong opinion on this issue you need to a grounding on the facts that affect that opinion. If going to Sweden makes no legal difference, why are you bothered about whether or not he goes to Sweden?

Not really sure what these "biased sources" my views are "clouded by" are. If you like, I could write down a framework of undeniable facts that support the same argument.

I didn't say that you had biased source. I said that either you don't really understand what the law is (which is seemingly more likely) or you are repeating something that you have seen or read which is inaccurate (so a biased source).

I'm interested to know whether you doubt that the US security machine can be brutal and unjust, because in the end that is what this whole thread comes down to. Whether Assange is technically guilty of this strange charge or not isn't even the ultimate point. He is a flawed individual, like all of us, who happens to have done some work which I personally feel is important to all of us. We should be very careful before we let him be sold down the river.

Speaking as someone who is broadly in favour of Wikileaks I don't think that his work gives him carte blanche to dictate as to which laws he chooses to obey or ignore.

By the sounds of things he has a charge which he needs to answer to. From what I understand, what he is being accused of, he doesn't seem to be denying. That's enough for me to consider his posturing a tad irrelevant particularly when the only reason that he seems to be refusing to go doesn't appear to have any logical legal basis.

As an aside, as somebody said earlier in the thread, if the US really wanted to do away with Assange, they'd be far better encouraging him to head off to Ecuador as soon as possible where it'll be far easier to quietly do away with him than subjecting him to a big show-trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes he is accused of rape he cannot be charged in Sweden with it until he is there and arrested. The allegations are Sexual molestation, unlawful coercion and rape.

Read paragraph 124 of the High Court judgment.

We do not consider that the offence was not fairly and accurately described. It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. "Consummated" refers to having intercourse, not to ejaculation. In our judgement it was not necessary to go further than was set out in the description of the conduct. as it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.

Please just watch the documentary. It isn't some shaky camera job done by twelve year olds, it's a prime time ABC (Australian) doco presented by Kerry O'Brian, a very well-respected interviewer and journalist.

The point is that the women were fine about what went on until they found out about each other: That makes him an arsehole, not a rapist. Can you imagine the UK pressing charges in a case like this? If so, I'd love to see evidence that that has ever happened.

You do know that the final paragraph isn't mine, but an extract from paragraph 124 of the High Court judgment?

I was unable to credit the source, to be honest I was surprised I was able to copy and paste, as I was using my phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're still being broad-minded, we might also be asking the bigger question: Why has a minor case like this come to extradition,

Because he will not answer the accusations in Sweden voluntarily!! By the way, do you really interpret rape as a minor case??

and would it do so if JA wasn't such a high profile individual with powerful enemies?

Yes, rape is a serious crime so any such allegations have to be answered regardless of who they are made against.

Also your attempt at moral equivalence between Assange's rape allegation and George W Bush's record is simply misdirection. Assange is wanted for questioning by legitimate authorities in connection with alleged rape. No formal allegations by a legitimate legal authority have been made against Bush - I'm afraid George Galloway and the Stop The War Coalition really don't count.

Do you now accept that under Swedish law Julian Assange has a case to answer and that he should be compelled to do so?

He has said that he will answer the case BY Sweden - In the Equadorean embassy: Same result, same likelihood of finding the truth, just no extradition.

And yes, I absolutely do believe that THIS case of "rape", in THESE circumstances is a minor case, if a case at all.

The word rape should be reserved for describing sex forced on someone who would never consent to it. To use it in a sense like this, which is at very best a loose definition of the word, is to make light of the suffering of REAL rape victims. Real rape victims do not consent to sex with the rapist, do not follow him around before and after the rape, do not tell everyone what a great time they're having with the rapist after being raped, and do not wait until their feelings are hurt before going to the police, if they go to the police at all.

And most important of all, it's clear that one of the main areas where we differ is on just whom we bestow the title of "Legitimate Authority". Personally I think you overrate these Legitimate Authorities, who are themselves human, and have to answer to governments, politicians and security organisations. Accepting blindly what they say at all times is asking for trouble in my opinion, although seemingly no in yours. Maybe this is the point where we can agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â