Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Yeah, it's the same argument people have when they don't think it's possible to rape a woman if you're married to them. Woman as property.

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

It's not just rape according to the lawyer in that article - it's rape according to the law of England and Wales.

This has also been confirmed by British judges at each level of Assange's attempts to appeal the extradition & EAW: Alleged Offence No. 4 (the "sleep sex") is, under the law of England and Wales, an allegation of rape.

http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assang...r-english-law/

---------- Post added at 20:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:07 ----------

A very good piece from "TwitterJokeTrial" solicitor and New Statesman legal blogger David Allen Green ("Jack of Kent"):

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

It covers the following BS claims repeatedly made by Assange supporters:


And here's a detailed post from barrister Anya Palmer on the whole "Why doesn't Sweden interview Assange in London?" thing:

http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-do...ange-in-london

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Maybe his head is so far up his own bottom he did not see the picture in question :D

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Galloway and Todd Akin seem to be on the same wave length when it comes to myths about rape ,he claims that women rarely get pregnant from "legitimate rape" because the female body can fight it off

seems to me that Assange,galloway and akin have some rather peculiar ideas



Oh and if someone can give me some idea of what "legitimate rape" is i'd be greatful

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Lets hope they never meet, they'll form some sort of ring with these ideas...

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

I understand that WikiLeaks has leaked quite damning evidence of widespread corruption involving the government and the police in Equador.

Does anyone have any links to any of this on the internet as I can't seem to locate it? TIA

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Either he doesn't believe America was 'evil' in those days (although their foreign policy then is hardly much better than it is now, replace 'War on Terror' with 'Cold War') or he thinks Kennedy was assassinated by the corrupt American regeme. Who knows. He certainly is anti-American now, it dominates almost every position he holds.

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Although I'd prefer Assange to go to Sweden, I would find this solution acceptable...

Foreign Office; ‘Ecuador can keep Assange as long as they take Galloway as well’

;)

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Here's a documentary I've found on the Assange case that some may find interesting:

"Sex, Lies and Julian Assange"
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stori...19/3549280.htm

It's rather long'ish at 46 minutes duration, but goes into considerable detail about the events surrounding the case. I found it worth the watch.

---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

And here it is on youtube as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqNR376L4rU

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Propaganda in support of an Australian citizen...

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Evidence? Or are we just to accept your sweeping claim as gospel?

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Well, you seem to be accepting some of the sweeping claims in the video as gospel (set up conspiracy, the US are behind it all, the Swedish Government are lapdogs of the USA).

A lot of what Fowler stated was assumption, not fact.

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

There are 13 pages of "discussion" here based on very few facts at all. In this thread I've seen more twisting of facts than factual discussion.

I found the video yesterday, and many of the details mentioned therein I'd already read on the net weeks ago. I thought it convenient to have it all in one video, with a lot of eyewitness testimony too. If those witnesses on camera giving their experiences are lying, they could be later held to account and/or sued. That gives them more credibility than some anonymous source in an online news article.

As Mark Twain once said, a lie can get half way around the world before the truth has even got its boots on.
The media have run so far with this whole "rape" thing that it really makes a mockery of what the media stand for, utterly shambolic in my view.
This is why I didn't get involved earlier in this or any discussion on Assange, because its nothing but a big circus show, with acts from all around. Best I think just to let the nonsense blow over, and wait for the facts to emerge.

Even Woman Against Rape can see this media circus for what it is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...julian-assange

As far as I'm concerned, and any self respecting human being should be concerned, Assange is innocent until proven guilty. He is not yet in Sweden, and he might not be for many months to speak (again) with investigators. He is STILL innocent until proven guilty.

I find it a rather interesting lesson in human psychology, how so many people, through their own prejudices (ie. don't like Assange, hatred of men, hatred/dislike of womanisers, rapists, etc) only see what they want to in this case whilst ignoring the rest. It seems there's a little something in this case for everyone to pick and choose from, then get up on their soapbox and shout about.

Here's where I am with this case. If there was justice in this world, the person accused of rape would have anonymity until at the very least charges had been brought, and ideally they'd have anonymity until a crime had been proven. What has happened here is not justice. Just because some people may not like Assange, does not justify or otherwise excuse what is happening. We've got some guy branded as a rapist without evidence. Pure conjecture, taken from the statements given, no evidence that a crime has even been committed, and many people think that's acceptable because it suits their own agenda. Those people are part of the problem. As far as the media are concerned he's as guilty as alleged. What a nasty little world we live in, my goodness grief.

Now without evidence, its impossible for us to know exactly what happened.
But some discussions and conclusions I've been reading are just utterly ridiculous.
Consider the following example:
If a woman wakes up and she is either being penetrated or touched in a sexual manner, then since she could not have consented, is automatically a sex crime and illegal - even if they are in a loving relationship.

That is nonsense, whether or not its a sex crime should be up to the person at the receiving end (in this case the woman), if she's decided she's been molested then she can go to the police and claim she was molested or raped (whichever is appropriate). It is NOT for anyone else to stick their nose into their business, look a few facts and then automatically assume rape, as seems to have been the case here. If the law still says its a crime, then in the interest of preventing innocent people from becoming labelled as sex offenders, the law should be changed.

I'm sure many men here have awoken to being touched in that way by a woman, but they'd never have dreamt of running to the police, having her charged with sexual molestation, and hoping to see her on the sex offenders list. Nor would they want that to happen should an account of what had happened that morning, somehow was mentioned within earshot of the police.

If a person could be so easily accused of rape by a third party, even against the wishes of the person at the receiving end, then it really makes a mockery of the word "rape", and is an insult to those who've been at the receiving end of rape.

Anyway, as far as the US being behind the Assange extradition is concerned, its impossible to know if this is true as we don't have the facts.
My view is that Assange is in pretty deep because of his association with wikileaks (being the founder) and that if he isn't apprehended then he will be looking over his shoulder probably for the rest of his life.
However, it is my understanding that the US gov still does not know exactly how wikileaks got all their information, and are no doubt concerned whether or not they (wikileaks) have another source that could further embarrass or compromise US military assets/interests.
I reckon that if the US gov believes Mr Assange holds the key there, then they will go to great lengths to get him one way or another, in the interest of national security of course.

Its been mentioned that if the US wants him then they could just have him extradited from here, well yes they could. But not if they've got a water board with Assange's name on it, then that might not be so simple....If they plan on forcibly extracting information from him, then the UK is a tinder box of future legal ramifications. Best let him leave the UK and deal with him later.

Also, you only have to look at the Gary McKinnon plight to see how the UK/USA extradition treaty has a limited life span. If too many people are extradited (even just one too many), then the UK gov will have to give in to the pubic dismay and have the extradition rules changed. The US gov knows this. Even though Assange is not a UK citizen, if anything should happen to him in the US or if he should end up in Guantanamo Bay (assuming he was extradited from here) that might cause UK public outrage, then he may as well be a UK citizen because it could still lead to a change in the extradition rules.

So yes, its not outside the reason of possibility for the US to have reason not to extradite Assange straight from the UK.

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

Doesn't mean anything. We're not saying he is guilty, we're saying he should face the legal process to decide such a thing. He can never be found guilty if he isn't brought to a court.

:dozey:

We do have the fact that the US haven't started an extradition request. We also know they could have done so here if they wanted do. So we're meant to lend credence to your conspiracy because they 'may' be facts we don't know about.

Personally I think you're Assange. It's impossible to know. We don't have all the facts.

No. Same ramifications. Also we would have to approve the extradition request anyway because you can't have a third-party (Sweden) extradite someone without the permission of the first-party (UK).

Where are these facts in your post?

Re: Wiki Leaks Founder Julian Assange granted 'Asylum' in Ecuador
 

So, the US has an extradition treaty with the UK that is *so* good, they can't afford to use it? This is precisely the sort of reverse logic that characterises all truly nutty conspiracy theories.

Your post was an entertaining read, especially the part where you sought to disparage all the discussion based on "very few facts at all". I bet you even wrote it with a straight face.

For a more level-headed discussion of the latest developments in this case, Dan Hodges is worth a read:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...nce-held-dear/