Merged Julian Assange: rapist or not? - Part 2 / Assange arrested

MostlyDead said:
Illegal in the US too, but the Ecuadorian Embassy is Ecuadorian soil. As blutoski noted, the Embassy likely had the technology hard-wired into it's security system.
Click to expand...
They are also extremely unreliable.

Unless something has changed massively since I had to look at it, it's iffy.

Paints were looking good for a while.

Do see the difficulty you just have to look at smuggled cell phones in jails
 
theprestige said:
Assange is a publisher. People send him information so that he will publish it. People who want to send secrets to China send them to China, not to Wikileaks. If Assange started selling secrets to China instead of publishing them, he would lose credibility as a publisher. People would stop sending him secrets.

Besides, the Chinese already have plenty of people to send them tech secrets. These are people who have the qualifications and credentials to work in aerospace and other industries where they will be exposed to tech advances. They are also people who are American citizens that can pass a background check and get a security clearance, so that they will have access to the kinds of tech secrets China is looking for.

Assange has none of these qualities. The people that do, who are interested in selling secrets to China, don't need Assange's help to do it.

All in all, if you want Assange to work in opposition to the US, his continued work publishing through Wikileaks is probably his best contribution. Earning money by selling tech secrets to China isn't really an option for him.

ETA: Anyway, what do you think Assange's anti-American efforts have to do with the topic of this thread?

-- Accusations of rape against Assange in Sweden.
-- The Swedish government's attempt to investigate these accusations.
-- Assange's ongoing efforts to prevent the progress of the Swedish investigation.

Also, this thread has been going on for a while. A lot of anti-US ideas have been expressed and discussed already. If you read through it, you might find some good arguments have already been made. You will also see many examples of how to express anti-US views without being sanctioned by the moderators.
Click to expand...
As with the US.

It isn't a one way street
 
cullennz said:
Sorry

Meant the US do the same

Infiltrate Chinese and other countries tech
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. I hope so, anyway. I assume every nation does it as much as they can.

The only thing that annoys me is when people try to say that there should be no consequences if they're caught, because "the other side does it too". Smiert spionam, regardless of nationality, I say.
 
Sabrina said:
This was kind of fascinating.

Inside The Strange, Paranoid World Of Julian Assange

Article by someone who worked with Assange discussing the background behind Wikileaks rise to prominence along with Assange as its head. Actually quite fascinating, even if it is more or less an opinion piece.
Click to expand...

I have always found fascinating when, during human history, the masses idolized the people in power that were screwing them while condemning the heroes what were trying to help

It is really interesting
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
I have always found fascinating when, during human history, the masses idolized the people in power that were screwing them while condemning the heroes what were trying to help
Click to expand...

You're forgetting one thing: In the context of this thread, Julian Assange is the villain, not the hero. He is literally the "people in power that were screwing". The Swedish justice system is literally "the heroes what were trying to help". The people cheering for Assange's escape to Ecuador are literally "the masses [that] idolized the people in power".

In this thread, whose side are you on? Julian Assange's? The women who accused him of rape? The civil servants investigating those accusations? The government protecting him?

Those are your choices, Sasha. That's what this thread is about.
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
2. Ergo Assange has probably never raped anyone but the US government need to show everyone what it happens if you whistleblow crimes

See Private Manning
See Snowden
Click to expand...

Nice to see you've circled back to topic. Several courts in Sweden and GB have reviewed the evidence, and disagrees - hence the warrant.

Why do you think he "probably never raped anyone"? Do you disagree with the UK/Sweden rape-laws, or do you think the accusation lacks factual grounds?

(IDK what you think the US has to do with Swedish and UK courts. If you think the US controls these, start a new thread in the CT-forum)
 
I expect we'll end up back at the "Sweden being more likely to extradite Assange to the US than the UK is" bollocks...which would be very boring.
 
eirik said:
Nice to see you've circled back to topic. Several courts in Sweden and GB have reviewed the evidence, and disagrees - hence the warrant.

Why do you think he "probably never raped anyone"? Do you disagree with the UK/Sweden rape-laws, or do you think the accusation lacks factual grounds?

(IDK what you think the US has to do with Swedish and UK courts. If you think the US controls these, start a new thread in the CT-forum)
Click to expand...
There's enough leeway in Sasha's wording to sound sincere. He can say that Assange probably didn't rape anyone while the Swedish prosecutor thinks there's probable cause to try him (and is upheld in that opinion by Swedish and UK courts). But in the end that means he has to stand trial.

How long does Assange need to hide for the statute of the more serious charge to run out?

And how many more book cases can he throw around in his little room before his hosts throw him out?
 
That moral compass that decides every issue by it's alignment with or opposition to United States government interests.

Assange would have to sing Yankee Doodle while praising the US State Department for him to be considered as a possible rapist. The testimony of the women he victimized is irrelevant.
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
If I said "I am not an [person of not high level IQ]" I would like be suspend again so I had to change my style
Click to expand...
Why do your arguments have to struggle so hard to be free of abuse? Why are your arguments so empty of actual evidence?

Others have contributed much more about Assange's innocence and America's guilt, in this thread. Why not read the thread and add to the work already done?
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
I have eyes
Click to expand...

Sure, but it is the brain-part that's relevant here - use it to make an argument.

How do you justify someone fleeing due process when two woman says he raped and sexually molested them, and evidence otherwise suggest there is grounds for the allegation?

They shouldn't even get a day in court, because your eyes tells you he probably didn't rape anyone? :boggled:
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
My opinion is what you said is irrelevant to the issue
Click to expand...

What I have said -IS- the issue. If he did as claimed, then under Swedish law he -IS- a rapist. This is all there is to it. It doesn't have anything to do with the US or wikileaks, it has to do with if he thought that he could ignore a woman's explicit instructions and do whatever he wanted with her body without permission. Full stop.

Look, if this was some sort of scheme by the US and she was a CIA plant, why would they make it so weak a case, and yes it is a weak case, but it's still a case. Why hinge the whole thing on if he refused to wear a condom? Why not have the complainant claim that she told him she didn't want to have sex and instead he held her down and raped her? It makes no sense to claim the US is involved with it (and for more than just that.)

I have previously stated that while I believe he did do it, I base this on what I know about him and his attitudes to other people, that even if it went to court, he'd either have been found not guilty and released, or given a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket. He probably could have plea bargained it to probation and community service, or whatever the Swedish equivalent is.

The problem is that Assange has a narcissistic ego, the same thing that had him ignore the woman's wishes to get his own way in the first place, and admitting that he was guilty is something that is beyond him, so instead he dreamed up and sells his tale of the horrid US being after him with zero evidence.

If the US really wanted him, they have dealt with him by now. They had months and months and months were they could have had him extradited from the UK if they really wanted him, a far easier option that from Sweden where they'd have to overcome that Sweden has no similar Law, that the crime is politically based (Sweden has a no extradition for political crimes law), and that any further extradition would have to be agreed to by the UK Courts and Government (which the US could have gone to in the first place without all the extra steps involved.) It's a Conspiracy Theory created by Assange to get his followers to excuse and turn away from his own bad behavior, the equivalent of yelling "Squirrel!"

You are not considering at all the points I was making, fine with you
If you want to believe that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese, go ahead by all means
Click to expand...

Your points have nothing to do with the case. The US got who they wanted, Manning. He was the one that took the files and passed then on, he was the one that broke the law. Assange didn't break any US Laws, the AG has stated that there is nothing they can charge him with, there have been no incitements, no requests for extradition, no attempts to get him. All of that is in the heads of his supporters who have swallowed the Assange Kool-Aid and joined in his paranoia. Notice that not one of the US based newspapers had legal issues over publishing the same things that Wikileaks did. As long as Assange was not involved in the actual procurement of the files, and there is no evidence if that, then he and Wikileaks committed no known crime under US Law.(I know that some people like to point to 18 U.S. Code Chapter 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP, but this is only applied to US Citizens and those in US jurisdiction at the time of the offence, Assange is neither a US Citizen nor was he under US jurisdiction, and so is not covered by this at all, any more then the KGB Spymasters in Moscow were during the Cold War.)
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
It may take the US to push the Swedish judiciary system to work on the case in this particular matter
Click to expand...
You do know that this thread is in "Social Issues & Current Events" right?

So let's here your evidence.

If you have no evidence to back your opinion with, there is another thread available for you to post in: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249818
It sits in the "Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories" part of the forum.
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
I am not an international lawyer nor you are one, probably
So we do not know about this
Click to expand...
You should read the thread. The legal situation was discussed at length. We actually know quite a lot about it.

One reason we know so much about it is because the legal arguments are real. They are published and we can analyze them and interpret them and reach informed conclusions about them.

Whatever involvement you imagine the US might have, there's no evidence for it. All you have is your imagination. So we actually know a lot more about the legal situation than we do about your fantasy of American involvement. And nothing about the legal situation suggests American involvement at all.

But you should really read the thread. All this has been discussed at length. Repeatedly.
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
2. Ergo Assange has probably never raped anyone but the US government need to show everyone what it happens if you whistleblow crimes

See Private Manning
See Snowden
Click to expand...

The difference there being, both Manning and Snowden were US citizens. Snowden has yet to face justice for his crimes, while Manning was tried and convicted. Assange, in contrast, is not a US citizen and is not subject to the same laws that Snowden and Manning are. The DOJ has flat out stated they have no charges to bring against Assange after their investigation into the matter; by our laws, HE did nothing wrong. Now Manning, who provided him with the information that originally brought him into the public eye, did. And has been tried and convicted.

As far as the US Government is concerned, that is an open-and-shut case and they don't give two hoots about Assange, but due to his pathetic need for adulation and the spotlight, Assange has manufactured this ephemeral vendetta wherein he claims the US government would like nothing more than to capture and torture him, and his slavish followers eat it up because it fits with their narrative that Assange is the best thing since sliced bread. News flash; he ain't that important.
 
Sabrina said:
The difference there being, both Manning and Snowden were US citizens. Snowden has yet to face justice for his crimes, while Manning was tried and convicted. Assange, in contrast, is not a US citizen and is not subject to the same laws that Snowden and Manning are. The DOJ has flat out stated they have no charges to bring against Assange after their investigation into the matter; by our laws, HE did nothing wrong. Now Manning, who provided him with the information that originally brought him into the public eye, did. And has been tried and convicted.

As far as the US Government is concerned, that is an open-and-shut case and they don't give two hoots about Assange, but due to his pathetic need for adulation and the spotlight, Assange has manufactured this ephemeral vendetta wherein he claims the US government would like nothing more than to capture and torture him, and his slavish followers eat it up because it fits with their narrative that Assange is the best thing since sliced bread. News flash; he ain't that important.
Click to expand...
Indeed
 
This has sod all to do with the US.

It is about a rape accusation in Sweden!

If you want to argue that it is down to the US wanting to extradite Assange, then you need to show that it would be easier for them to do it from Sweden than from the UK. Something which no one has so far managed to do on this thread.

You will also then (once you have managed to jump that hurdle) need to show that the women involved are somehow tied to your imaginary CIA operation. Good luck with that one.
 
Tolls said:
This has sod all to do with the US.

It is about a rape accusation in Sweden!
Click to expand...

Sweden is an ally of the US

Tolls said:
If you want to argue that it is down to the US wanting to extradite Assange, then you need to show that it would be easier for them to do it from Sweden than from the UK. Something which no one has so far managed to do on this thread.
Click to expand...

Nor you would understand if some one did as you no expert of intl law

Tolls said:
You will also then (once you have managed to jump that hurdle) need to show that the women involved are somehow tied to your imaginary CIA operation. Good luck with that one.
Click to expand...

No I would not
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
My opinion is what you said is irrelevant to the issue
Click to expand...

This seems to be a recurring theme with you. Saying that X is your opinion and calling Y an opinion as well doesn't mean that they are of equivalent soundness.

SashatheMagnificent said:
This is your opinion
I beg to differ
Click to expand...

See? Again!

- "I think gravity doesn't exist!"
- "But we have all this evidence that it does."
- "This is your opinion. Mine is different."
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Sweden is neutral, actually. And has a history of opposing the US in matters like this.
Click to expand...

Shure

Main export partners
*Germany 11% -> Nato country and political puppy of the US
*United Kingdom 7.7% -> Nato country and political puppy of the US
*Denmark 7.3% -> Nato country and political puppy of the US
*United States 6.4% -> the US
*Netherlands 5.3% -> Nato country and political puppy of the US
*Belgium 5.2% -> Nato country and political puppy of the US
*Finland 4.7% -> Somehow independent
*France 4.6% -> Nato country and political puppy of the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
What do you think it does?

US Military Classifies Wikileaks As 'Enemy Of The United States'
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...sifies-wikileaks-as-enemy-united-states.shtml
Click to expand...


From 2012. Wikipedia defines an Enemy of the State:

An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason.
Click to expand...

Your own cited article links to some elaboration:

However, in the FOI documents there is no allegation of any actual communication for publication that would aid an enemy of the United States such as al-Qaeda, nor are there allegations that WikiLeaks published such information

The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".

...the investigators closed the case without laying charges.
Click to expand...

The DOJ, as you already now, has no charges to file against Assange. They just don't care about him. Your assumptions are not factually supported.
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
He does

And I do not believe that all opinions are of equal value, for example I do not think hsi opinion, your opinion and the opinion of many other people who write here is worth much
Click to expand...

Regardless of evidence?

How about truth? Do you believe that there is something like objective truth?
 
SashatheMagnificent said:
Not exactly, I have claimed they could
Click to expand...

But it has been repeatedly shown that under Swedish law they cannot, and under American law they have no charges against him, nor do they even want to extradite. But since you claim they 'could', what are your or your surrogate's expert qualifications in international law that supports this position?
 
If Assange is of the belief that Sweden is likely to extradite him to the US over Wikileaks then why, at the time of the alleged rape and sexual molestation, was he in Sweden applying for residency there in order to make it the base for Wikileaks because of their laws protecting whistleblowers?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
If Assange is of the belief that Sweden is likely to extradite him to the US over Wikileaks then why, at the time of the alleged rape and sexual molestation, was he in Sweden applying for residency there in order to make it the base for Wikileaks because of their laws protecting whistleblowers?
Click to expand...
And why when he was accused of rape in Sweden, did he flee to the UK, which has even closer ties to the US?

Assange is acting like he's guilty of rape in Sweden, not like he's afraid of the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom