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

I'm not entertaining your premise. As with all conspiracy theories, it demands a particular reading of facts and inferences without any honest intellectual attempt to appraise their relative weight and feeds on any criticism as further proof of its own correctness.

Suffice it to say, I think Julian Assange should go to Sweden, as all the British courts he has consulted have told him he must do, and participate in a judicial process I am confident will be free and fair.

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

I'm glad you feel it will be free and fair, that shows that you actually believe in what you are saying, rather than using these allegations as a whipping stick to beat someone you don't like for reasons unrelated.

You may be right, but IF there are political motivations, then I think it's fair to say it will not end with his trial in Sweden.

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

To be honest, prior to these allegations - or rather, his response to these allegations - I tended to believe Assange was providing a useful service to the world by founding Wikileaks. However, I certainly don't think that Wikileaks is a reason to confer sainthood on him, nor is it sufficient grounds in itself to assume that any criminal allegation made against him must necessarily be politically motivated.

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

Actually I meant that the fact he ran rather than "face the music" could be taken to imply guilt.

Where did I pigeon hole you? Where did I mention you in that paragraph? I was making the point that your statement applies to both sides of the argument. Admittedly, I did say I was going to paraphrase you, but AFAIK, paraphrase does not mean pigeon hole, or imply anything about you or your beliefs.

As for whether you have prejudices or not, I don't know you, so I don't know whether you do. However, you say that you call things how you see them. However, if you do have prejudices (and most people do, whether they are aware of it or not), then they will affect how you see things.

As for whether I have prejudices. I am not aware that I do. I can, however, ignore them.

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

The Swedish extradition is meaningless in the context of a hypothetical extradition request to America. All that the Swedish extradition would achieve is adding another party whose permission America would need to seek. Instead of simply trying to get him out of the UK they would need to get him out of Sweden with the permission of the UK.

How does this make sense to you? Have America become so bored with the success they have had getting the UK Courts to extradite that they fancied a bit of a challenge?

It could be Assange is simply exploiting anti-Americanism and his legion of supporters' political prejudices to get himself out of a serious allegation of rape in Sweden. Sweden is not some tin-pot dictatorship with a corrupt legal system. It has a respected judiciary which is why we have no issue with their extradition request in the first place.

---------- Post added at 17:12 ---------- Previous post was at 17:00 ----------

Not only this but Wikileaks are being incredibly stupid by associating themselves with this one guy. Wikileaks is really just a politically-neutral technical platform for the leaking of information. However, He has hijacked it to become his own little propaganda tool. Their Twitter account is in full-on Assange mode. It's linking to every pro-Assange article whilst attacking those who write dissenting articles and trying to discredit them for their 'agendas' rather than the content of their arguments. They dismissed David Allen Green who has written one of the more popular rebuttals of their arguments as being a Assange "enemy". They're nuts!

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

Actually, the official reason why we have no issue with the extradition request is the European Arrest Warrant, which is just about as awful in its own way as the lopsided extradition arrangements that exist between the UK and the USA.

Some commentators have suggested that the best defence Assange could mount would be to raise a writ of Habeas Corpus in the British courts - it being a principle enshrined in English law for centuries yet not in many Continental systems of justice. Under English law, you can't be detained except for a very short period of time unless sufficient evidence exists to charge you with a crime. In many continental systems you can be detained while investigations leading to a possible charge at some future date are carried out. For all its liberal trustworthiness, from what I can tell, this appears to be the system that operates in Sweden.

Having said all that, Assange's extradition has been ruled lawful under the laws and procedures currently in force. This, and the fact that Sweden is not a tinpot state, and also does have a respected judiciary, are all reasons why we should be confident that he will be fairly treated there.

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

Well if I was going to be extradited to any country I'd prefer it was Sweden the most libertarian country in the world and the birthplace of Nobel.

I also would have hesitated to ask for asylum from one of the most reprehensible dictatorships in the world especially one that was even closer to the US.It wouldn't take the US any effort to send in a team.;)

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

Sparkle, given your strange notions regarding consent and rape, I think that you should read these:

There are no dream lovers for ‘Sleep Rape’ Victims by @felicitygerry

Laurie Penny (Penny Red) - It's Trigger Warning Week

Rapes might not all be the same, but they are all rapes

And?

Does being in a "loving relationship" automatically give a man the right to penetrate his partner while she is asleep?

Perhaps you would also like us to return to the days where marital rape was legal?

Someone who is asleep cannot consent to sex, and sex without consent is rape.

It is that simple.

It is wrong, legally and morally, to penetrate someone without consent. And it is wrong, legally and morally, to penetrate someone who is sleeping or otherwise unconscious and cannot even be asked for consent in the first place!

You cannot just assume consent just because your partner has previously consented. That goes for long term relationships and one-night stands.

If my wife and I have sex when we go to bed, that does not give me the right to have sex with her the next morning while she is still asleep.

Consider also:

Assange and the complainant were not in a "loving relationship".



The complainant has specifically accused Assange of penetrating her vagina with his penis while she was asleep and unable to consent.

That is a clear allegation of rape under Swedish law, and a clear allegation of rape under English law.

You cannot penetrate someone without consent, and you certainly cannot penetrate someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious. To do so is rape.

There is a difference between a man being woken by a woman touching him, and a woman being woken to find that she has been penetrated in her sleep.

The complainant has specifically accused Assange of penetrating her vagina with his penis while she was asleep and unable to consent.

That is a clear allegation of rape under Swedish law, and a clear allegation of rape under English law.

You cannot penetrate someone without consent, and you certainly cannot penetrate someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious. To do so is rape.


And Sweden would also be a "tinder box of future legal ramifications", given that it is also a party to the European Convention on Human Rights like the UK is, and as such is prohibited under Article 3 from extraditing anyone if they are at risk of torture or execution.

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

Rape is rape is rape when a human being says NO.The minute the word no is uttered then it stops.If it doesn't it's rape.There is no grey area.There is only no or yes.Of course if consent cannot be asked for then consent has not been given.

And just because a person may not shout rape from the rooftops at the time does not mean they weren't raped.It just means that they were too frightened of the rapist.

Anyway the only way to prove his case is for Assange to actually go into a court of law and prove it.Until he does he will be labelled a rapist and wikileaks is a discredited by association.The more he runs away the more he loses the moral high ground.

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

Not as odd as you might think. It's standard procedure (in the US and UK at least) for the Police to re-open cases upon receipt of new information, testimony or evidence (or if there is a new way to examine existing evidence).

If the lady who was penetrated while asleep (which, as discussed above, is rape however you dress it up) said this to the Police, it would certainly cause them to re-open the case.

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

This is all getting a little tedious, next time he goes to sleep we extradite him, let's hear what he has to say about sleeping people and consent then

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

I was wondering you would jump into this Matt D, as it was your bizaare notions of what makes a person guilty of sex crimes that spurred me into this discussion.

Having sex with someone whilst asleep is beyond weird, and not something I can at any level relate to. I think having sex with a sleeping partner could also be rape. However, I wouldn't go so far as to automatically assume rape (as you do) - as I clearly stated in my original post that you referred to. Context is the word here Matt.
I never stated it couldn't be "rape", just that it wasn't for a third party (such as yourself or myself) to automatically infer rape. Consent can be given the night before, you know.

Wooah, certainly no pun intended but that's somewhat below the belt there.:confused:
I mean yes, after all since I'm merely inferring that it is up to the woman (in this case) to decide whether or not she's been raped and not you (in this case) then clearly I must think that marital rape is A-okay. She is the man's property after all... :rolleyes:

So that's what you think of me?
Well here's what I think. I think it's men like you with your overly simplistic logic and dogmatic attitude to women that have given all us men a bad name for decades. Since, is it you (in this case) who's treating the woman like she's property and can't make her own decisions, as you have decided for her (benefit) and made it clear that she could not have consented and she was raped whether she thinks so or not, the pretty little defenseless thing.

If this were back in 1840, you'd be dictating that if a woman's vag lubricates during sex then it isn't rape. Of course you know better now since you're armed with more knowledge, but yet your approach and attitude remains the same.

It may surprise you to know, a woman can decide for herself whether she was raped or molested without your help. Same applies to all people, not just women.

However, there is a situation where your approach does apply and should apply. In the case of a mentally retarded person being awoken to having sex, but yet not being able to understand what rape is. Then in that case, your approach will come in very handy. We could use you then.

Until then, let adults decide for themselves.


See above.

If only.

Does what you are inferring not go without saying? I mean it's rather obvious, yes? But you seem to think that in order for a couple to have sex, one partner (the male in this case), must have a written invitation.
Many couples develop a feel as far as how far they have consent.

And also, lets not forget that Assange has already denied all these claims anyway.

I'm not comfortable with the "You" in the sentence as this has nothing to do with me, but I'll assume it's an oversight on your part.
I agree that a person can't just automatically assume such things. But you have to remember that couples get up to all sorts of things, and rarely does one partner ask "permission" before doing so.

Well that is up to your wife to decide, not me (as a third party). That's where we differ.

Consider also:

Assange has denied all the allegations.

Hold on there. I never read that she claimed rape, or that consent was not given. I've only read that she alleges she was asleep, but not that she complained or stated that Assange didn't have consent previously in one way or another.

Well, considering the way you worded the above, and your interpretation of the word "consent" (possible written invitation), then yes.

If indeed a person does not have verbal consent, then clearly we're talking potential rape. But again, that is up to the "victim" in this case to decide as we don't really have all the sexual details. And from Assange's track record, I'm not sure I want to read them.
Maybe she woke him up by having sex and he thought he'd return the favour?
Seems a bit of a stretch, but until we hear his side of the story it's kinda hard to draw any definitive conclusions.

There sure is a difference, and I made it clear I was referring specifically to the issue of consent, in which case there is not. A sleeping man can give just as much consent to being fondled as a sleeping woman can consent to being penetrated. Fondling and penetrating someone sexually without consent are both crimes and can result in prosecution, which was the pretext for my example.

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

All very interesting, and all utterly besides the point. His extradition has been affirmed, confirmed and reaffirmed at three increasingly senior levels by our independent judicial system. Assange must go to Sweden. All these arguments about what constitutes rape are for the Swedish authorities.

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

....only in this case it wasn't. Pretty good grounds to be suspected of rape I think.

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

Who should infer rape - the female complainants?

Re "consent can be given the night before" - it wasn't, for the unprotected sex.

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

A notion he shares with multiple British and Swedish judges it would seem.

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

Oh that's all right then. Why bother with expensive trials and courts if the accused says he didn't do it he must be telling the truth. :rolleyes:

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

Which brings me yet once again to my point that there hasn't been a trial, and he is innocent until proven guilty. How many times must I repeat this?

I'd have thought such an outspoken proponent of the law, and what it stands for, could grasp such a concept that has so easily eluded you.

edit: removed profession reference as could be deemed inappropriate

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

Again, interesting but besides the point. His case has satisfied the terms of our extradition arrangements with Sweden. He must therefore go to Sweden. Then the investigation will be concluded according to Swedish law and, if there is a case to answer, he will be charged and tried then either convicted or acquitted. All of this can only take place in Sweden.

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

So if anyone is accused of something and flee to another country they should have the trial without them or just wait till they decide to return?

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

In the situation where there has been a murder, and there has not yet been a trial, doesn't mean that there isn't a murderer out there. A crime has still taken place.

Just because somebody has been found not guilty, doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it, you may just not be able to prove it.

He may claim that she wasn't asleep, but was she fully awake and aware? Even if she was awake, did he say or do anything, in order for her to consent, or did he simply surprise her, which would be rape. The 2 women feel that there is something to complain about.

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

Have you heard of the expression "everyone is dancing out of step except me"?

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

They should do exactly as they have done. Interpol alert, extradition proceedings, etc. Assange will remain on the run, or in this case imprisoned at the Ecuadorian embassy until he is arrested and extradited. Regardless of whether or not some people on CF are feeling particularly patient, he is entitled to a defense.

---------- Post added at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:18 ----------

*yawn*

How many people have I called a rapist?
How many character assassinations have I partaken in?
Exactly. I'm discussing the Assange case at arms length but I am taking care to give the accused the benefit of the doubt until such times as we hear his testimony. You might not like him, but technically he is still innocent.

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

No idea, I can't be bothered to trawl through all your posts as they seem to ramble on and on hoping someone will give in and agree with you just for an easy life.

As above.


Glad you agree.

I'm glad you're giving him the benefit of the doubt but you seem happy for him to evade justice. And by 'justice' I don't mean prosecution, I mean his day in court. Almost everyone, including most people on CF and several British and Swedish judges have agreed he has a case to answer. The courts aren't there just to jail him, they are there to give him a chance to answer the allegations put to him. All the correct legal channels have been followed. The option is there for him to have his say but he continues to evade justice.

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

Nothing to do with it. No one has said he is guilty. We're saying he should have to face the justice system and go to Sweden.

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

There are documented instances of women making far more severe accusations of rape, the accused has (in some instances) had to move away, change his name, or in rare instances committed suicide.
Yet often there is little if any justice for the accused.
That is a very unfair system, and people assuming the accused is guilty when they haven't even heard his testimony is just plain ridiculous.

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

Outside of 'innocent until proven guilty', do you think he's guilty of rape?

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

Which also is interesting, yet besides the point. Assange's case has fulfilled the necessary conditions for extradition to Sweden. So to Sweden he must go.

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

I don't know if he's guilty or not of sexual assault and/or rape, as the case has not been heard - what he is most certainly is doing is trying to avoid the case being heard.

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

They have heard his initial testimony. Anyone can deny something, if that denial cannot be properly tested and scrutinised and especially not be able to be acted upon(ie arrest). You can't expect the whole case of questioning and answers to be played out via the media.

He says that the allegations are politically motivated, but they were made by 2 of his supporters. Also if that was the case, they would have been made straight away after the first incident and not days later after the 2nd one. There may be disagreements about details of any events, but events took place and he took part. It is not a completely fictitious set of events being claimed.
If what he did was so above board and innocent, why make that statement?

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

I accept there is merit to that theory. I can't see how Assange will be on any safer ground in Ecuador than in Sweden if he's running from the US. The US can get him in Ecuador probably as easily as in Sweden.

I suspect he's using the Ecuadorian embassy as an intermediate broadcasting platform prior to giving himself up for extradition, and has every intention of doing just that when he feels the time is right.
If there is political coercion going on behind the scenes, then I think Assange's asylum claim was a smart move. If he's confident that the allegations will be thrown out after he returns to Sweden, then it's an even smarter move. Consider that, if after all this drama the "justice" he returns to face turns into a nothing more than a damp squib, he will have made a complete fool out of the media, the UK and the US government, and certainly a PR victory on his part. Not to mention bringing attention to the lop-sided rape laws both in Sweden and the UK. £50,000 per day in security outside the embassy according to the dailymail.
Even woman's rights activists will be furious that the gov has hijacked their plight for a political cause, like it's something to be used then thrown away when it no longer suits the political agenda.
On the other hand, if the allegations are true, and there never was any political agenda, not only will I will I have to eat my words, but it will be the end of Assange's career.

I can see this one turning fairly heated if those allegations aren't substantiated, history will be the judge.

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

Theory?

I am pretty sure his actions back up my assertion.....

btw, I think you will find the Judge, assisted by a jury, will be the judge (if Mr Assange ever decides to turn up)...;)

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

Political Coercion or not, if there is a case to answer then there is a case to answer. It dies not have to be any more complicated than that.

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

:confused: And how is what has been alleged not a crime in his home country of Australia or most other places.
Link to Australian article
Even that raises the issues of consent where:-
If she consented later, what happened before that would still have been a crime as she hadn't consented before he started that time.

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

If this were an ordinary extradition case, then I'd certainly agree.
But given the circumstances, the lengths Assange seems prepared to go to avoid extradition just doesn't seem to add up.
Would seem far easier just to face the charges, and whatever sentence if found guilty, rather than a lifetime of being on the run from the Swedish authorities.

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

Someone accused of a serious crime going to extreme lengths to avoid court?

You're saying you find that unusual?

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

What is there to be confused about? Rape law is in general very unfair for the accused.
Look at this case, don't you think Assange should have been entitled to anonymity until a crime has been proved? There are countless cases of men's lives being ruined by false accusations, whilst the accusers (some of them serial accusers) enjoy full anonymity. They do it because they know they can get away with it.

If you read up on the history you will know that in the UK those accused of rape get publicly named so that other victims can come forward, as happened with a few notable cases back in the 80's.
However, the flaw with that logic, is that in a country of 60 million people, if you were to turn the tables, and only name the accuser and allow the accused to enjoy anonymity, then in any given decade there would be other falsely accused men ALSO coming forward claiming that they'd been falsely accused.
But that hardly justifies naming the accusers, if the law were fair both parties would remain anonymous until a crime had been proven. Even most women I've spoken with seem to agree with this.

Another reason why that logic is flawed is because there is no way to be certain how many false accusers have come forward to accuse men of rape and then their testimony causing an innocent man to be found guilty by a jury.
And also considering, it is well documented that even after being acquitted, men falsely accused of rape have considered their lives so utterly trashed that they've committed suicide.
Many will say, mud sticks.
Its lop-sided and unfair.

Also, the 6% rape conviction statistic is unproven. The reason 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction, is because in 6% of reported rapes there is evidence that rape has occurred. Unproven, whereas feminists will parrot that statistic like it's gospel.
I recall back in the 80's learning that 1 in 4 fathers will rape their daughters. This originated back in the 70's.
Militant feminist garbage, without even a grain of truth to it, and we shouldn't stand for it.

Back in the 90's during the spate of college date rape cases in the US, law makers attempted to make it law that the male had to prove consent in rape cases. That is absolutely criminal, and militant feminists would just love to see it happen. The way things are going, and the disturbing ease at which some men in our society would like to see other men labeled as a rapist, is worrying.

Militant feminists will say, that if a couple have sex, and the woman is drunk then SHE couldn't have consented and it was rape.

They will conveniently ignore the example when its the man that's drunk and has sex with a sober woman. In their twisted little world, in that example they no doubt reckon it was just his lucky day.

There is no sense of fairness in militant feminism, they see the whole world though the prism of gender bias, it's just a shame our governments actually listen to them when they only represent a fringe minority of men and women.

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

Sexual intercourse requires consent, but consent does not require a "written invitation". At no time did I say or imply that it required a "written invitation", and it is nonsense to say so :rolleyes:

If someone wishes to have sexual intercourse with their partner, they require their partner's consent. It can be verbal, it can be non-verbal, but there must be consent.

Prior consent to one instance of sexual intercourse does not give carte blanche consent for any and all future sexual intercourse, whether the partner is awake or asleep, conscious or unconscious. Consent is given before the act, it is not taken away after the act.




The Law:

Sexual Offences Act 2003



The guidance of the CPS:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 - CPS


The following has been posted more than once in this thread...



The actual rape allegation by complainant "SW", as listed in the EAW:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2011/2849.html



From the ruling of the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court in the case of the judicial authority of Sweden versus Julian Assange:


From the ruling of the High Court of Justice in the case of the judicial authority of Sweden versus Julian Assange:

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

What has the issue of anonymity got to do with this? The laws in Britain and Sweden are NOT that lop-sided compared to the rest of the world. If the allegations are that flimsy then the Swedish courts would have already dismissed them.

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

If the allegations are that flimsy, why doesn't he return to Sweden and let the Swedish authorities attempt to prove his alleged guilt while he defends his innocence.

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

A person needs consent to have sex, Matt I think we get that bit.
The consent issue was never disputed, just the form it must take.
It seems you finally agree that just assuming a person waking to having sex is automatically rape, is flawed as consent can take other forms.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

The allegations were originally dismissed outright. Then the case was reopened, for reasons we can only speculate on.

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

No I do not agree with that, as it is not possible to obtain consent from someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious.

A sleeping person cannot consent to sex. If you have sex with someone without their consent, it is rape.

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

Because it's unfair for the reasons already mentioned. One person labelled as a rapist for life, regardless of evidence.

If you ever find yourself falsely accused, and your name splashed all over the news, we'll see how "fair" you think the rape laws are

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:10 ----------

I think you've been unconscious, go back to sleep. Or try reading my post thoroughly addressing that point in nauseous detail earlier this afternoon. :)

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

All of which is entirely besides the point. The extradition request has been exhaustively examined by the British courts and has been approved. Assange must go to Sweden.

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

Whether the case was reopened because of pressure from the US, would be totally irrelevant as the allegations had already been made before that time. Who is to say that the case was originally dismissed because somebody supported Wikileaks etc. There are many cases that are reopened or dismissed later on.

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

There was no consent given for unprotected sex.

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

Looks like being the friend of someone as slippery as Mr Assange can be an expensive business.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...d-forfeit-bail

Still why was the money not held in escrow until his legal status was sorted out and why do they get a discount on the money owed when it's clear he has failed to comply with the bail conditions surely the full amount should be forfeited.

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

It does seem weird. Even weirder is that people are ordered to pay different percentages of the amount pledged.

So they both pledged to pay £20k and one is ordered to pay £12k and the other £15k?

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

Haha! What mugs these people are, going to court to weasel out of paying bail? Their case being that they didn't know he was going to run away? That's what bail is for! If the person fails to turn up then they broke the bail conditions and the money is forfeited. When you put the money up you do so on this understanding with the presumption from the court being that these people are confident that the bail will not be broken, they are backing up the character in question with cold, hard, cash.

Looks like they've learnt an expensive lesson yesterday. That offering to pay bail isn't a nice PR move to promote your credentials as a friend of the liberty and truth to the occupy movement, it's bail.

What. A. Bunch. Of. Mugs.

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

I personally think they should have to pay the lot. They made there decision to support him and should have to pay the bail money. I hope they now know what i already knew and that is that he is a ******* that cannot be trusted.

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

Ditto that.

They knew the rules and should have to pay up in full.

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

Someone will pay it, most think the yanks are behind this, and lots of people hate the yanks.
So a few quid will soon be forthcoming.

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

And the award for most ludicrous decision of the year goes to (drum roll)... The UN.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35499942

Apparently hiding away voluntarily and being free to leave your hiding place at any time amounts to unlawful detention to which Mr Assange should be entitled to compensation. :nutter:

I'll happily give him 20p to compensate him for his time inside the embassy just as long as he comes in person to collect it.

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

The UN is full of these daft committees. They are invariably stuffed with small-minded delegates from tinpot states who can't resist an opportunity to stick it to the man.

Assange is a narcissist and his fans are deluded fools. He will either die in that embassy or else come out and face justice.

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

In a way he's serving a self-imposed 'prison' sentence in that embassy. Then he has to come out and face his accusers...

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

This is crazy lol, he could of walked into the street at any moment,

So are we saying anyone accused of rape/murder/pedophilia, etc should just run to the Ecuadorean embassy stay there until Europe decides they were arbitrarily detained. Then walk free?

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

He is none of those until found guilty by trial. The problem here is that the USA has a vendetta against him and he fears that Sweden will enforce an extradition request from said USA.

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

If the US gets hold of him he'll get 999 years.

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

But he is accused of a sex crime.

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

The USA has made no extradition request. In fact, if the USA wanted him, it would be easier for them to request it from the UK, from where it would be much easier.

Assange is wanted for questioning over rape allegations in Sweden and he has fled into the Ecuadorian embassy in order to evade lawful arrest.

Everything else - everything - is a smoke screen.

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

Nice article about some of the legal myths surrounding this case.

http://www.newstatesman.com/david-al...ge-extradition

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

Well Gorgeous George Galloway reckons he's been very hard done by so...

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

Which, I'd like to point out, he has delayed by requesting asylum in Ecuador. I'd also like to point out that he is effectively in prison (although voluntarily) and has been so likely for longer than he would have had he gone to court and been convicted.

As noted by Chris and Hugh, any extradition from Sweden is likely to be considerably more difficult for the US than any from the UK, and who's to say that the US couldn't effectively bargain with or bully Ecuador. Surely they'd be a more easy target than Sweden or the UK.

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

Does though a not guilty or a non trial mean that someone is truely innocent or does it just mean that there is reasonable doubt?

If someone rapes another but there is insufficient evidence he/she is still a rapist in the eyes of the victim just not in the eyes of the law or the public in general
.

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

I wonder if Ronnie Biggs' family will sue the UK Government because he was arbitrarily detained in Brazil, as he would have been arrested if he came to the UK.

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

Where there's blame there's a claim... :)

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

I bet he wished he'd picked a better embassy. maybe one with a garden. Or a space to go outside.
He's effectively living inside a room in a flat.

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

An I bet those working at the embassy are getting sick of him,

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

I still like to think that he's spent the last few years forced to listen to this on repeat...

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

Wikileaks have released all kinds of info today, in which experts say at first glance looks genuine, 1000's of documents have been released detailing hacking tools and methods, so far, they are saying MI5 and CIA are routinely using Smart TV, iPhones, iPads, Microsoft systems to bug their targets...

http://news.sky.com/story/cia-cyber-...leaks-10793709

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

Bugger, I've got a Samsung smart tv. Now my views on the Trumpster are known to the CIA. They probably agree with me anyway ;)

However, they probably got bored with the 7 series of 'All Creatures Great and Small' I just viewed on it, or maybe they're hooked with tales of Yorkshire veterinary life ?

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

I always wondered how Samsung were able to undercut Sony but still have the best technology. Now I know why, they've probably been subsidised by the CIA. :D

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

And more controversial speculation starts. Did Samsung know about this; were they in on it? Will sales of Samsung TV's plummet? Will there be law suits? What make of TV does Donald own...;);):D:D


Joking aside; this is serious stuff.

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

So anything voice activated and net connected has to be considered suspect. :erm:

Modern version of what the butler saw. :D

Re: WikiLeaks
 

The leak documents suggest that the nasty men in black helicopters (in the case of MI5 probabaly a knackered old Astra Van) would have to break into your house and unload the malware via memory stick.

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

Does remind me a bit of 1984. :) Like others I'm not too surprised; the concern is if this type of ability gets into the wrong hands.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

But Smart TV's are connected to the internet; why the need for a memory stick?

Re: WikiLeaks
 

Pay attention 007

Presumably this is the only viable attack vector poor old Q has managed to identify. Besides, I doubt they want this malware widely propagated in the wild that is assuming it does actually exist in the first place. Afterall if it's sitting on thousands of tv sets there's a good chance it can be found and dissected.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

I bow to your superior knowledge, 003.5

Re: WikiLeaks
 

Wonder if the spooks have already adopted alternative means by which to achieve the same end. Wouldn't it suit their purposes for everyone to be running around worrying about this stuff when it's already been superceded? Just a thought... :shrug:

Re: WikiLeaks
 

The dump is largely unsurprising to be honest. Wikileaks have, as usual, over-hyped it. Essentially the story is that the CIA want to exploit any device they can.

Who would think they wouldn't be doing such a thing? Hell, even if they have no intentional to use these exploits in the wild (unlikely) they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they weren't attempting to learn of them if even for their own protection. Assange has being hyping 'Vault 7' for months.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

Re: WikiLeaks
 

Plus if the CIA and our friends out West at HMS Donut aren't doing it assume them pesky Russkies or those cheeky Chinese chappies will be trying to do precisely the same thing.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

Its already started; personal micro chipping. Ostensibly good reasons for doing so, but open to so much nefarious abuse.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...echnology.html

Re: WikiLeaks
 

If you value your privacy you might as well be aware that all this 'smart' stuff has the ability to spy on you, best of all you're paying for it. Imagine when we've all got Google Home Or Amazon Alex or whatever the latest in automation is, your conversations then have the potential to be recorded. Not saying they are sdo no need for tin foil hat, but the capability is there and we know that Govts are quite happy to exploit everything they can in the pursuit of security.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

CIA is, and always has been, a rogue agency that doesn't answer to their civilian authority. It has caused, or been made to cause the majority of international problems we face in the world today.

Yet it's still here.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

Saw a documentary about JFK scaling back the CIA in a big way back in 60's, it caused a lot of deep upset within, but then we all know what happened next to JFK...... Coincidence?

Re: WikiLeaks
 

I get that it's no surprise they're doing stuff like this, but it can't be just shrugged off like it isn't a problem, they're not the NSA, these are dangerous people that will utilize things like these for dangerous things.

---------- Post added at 16:21 ---------- Previous post was at 16:21 ----------

Just after he trashed the incredible Operation Northwoods. :erm:

Re: WikiLeaks
 

I tend to agree. Not necessarily a defined plan but more a gradual erosion of privacy and freedom disguised as 'progress' which will ultimately play into the hands of criminals and those who'd rather like to be able to control/exploit the masses in one way or another, if only to preserve their own privileged status. The pace of technological change is such that's increasingly difficult to predict where all this will end up in terms of its uses (good and not so good) and wider effects on our society.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

It may be a problem depending where you stand on the importance of a security service such as MI6 or the CIA but as long as you do have one this should be seen as their bread and butter.

What about this is scandalous? The CIA's job is to gather intelligence covertly.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

Re: WikiLeaks
 

because... tovarich, we don't yet live in soviet russia.. or do we?

Re: WikiLeaks
 

I already answered that. : What part of controlling vehicles is used to gather information? I'm fairly confident that's part of undetectable assassinations. Quite frankly, with the exploitation of Windows they could literally create the largest botnet on the planet, although they're probably a step ahead.

Believing the CIA would actually use any of this to just gather intelligence is naive, it'll be used to blackmail, kill and anything that fits their own agenda. That's the CIA way and that's the way it's always been.

Can't even fathom that an organization responsible for plotting terror attacks on domestic soil, very likely participating in Operation Gladio and committing terror attacks and torturing it's own citizens would be merely gathering information for the 'protection of the US'

The NSA done this and it was scandalous. However, they tend not to kill people whenever it suits them.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

Spot on; Revelation 13:17.


I think a possible scenario, in the future, is that micro chipping will be forced on everyone, and it will be used as a database to implement the mark of the Beast.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

Excellent timing for the release of this news - swept everything else off the front pages....

Re: WikiLeaks
 

No. I got that. However that seems a general comment on the CIA rather than this specific release of documents.

I think Assange and the conspiracy-wing of the internet have let themselves run away with this 'Vault 7' hype when the substance is mundane. All they've really done is embarrassed the CIA but obtained the material but that material isn't evidence of anything especially nefarious. It's not even the deployment of these exploits but the investigation of those exploits.

None but it's an obvious security issue. The CIA will want to learn how to do it. Yes maybe they'll use it for covert assassinations too. They are the CIA. Although I suspect this exploit is overblown too because there is no mass provider or platform for self-driving cars so the question would be what they've actually broke into here.

Re: WikiLeaks
 

It seems to turn your hair bright pink as well :erm:

Re: WikiLeaks
 

I wonder if it's a case of matching collars and cuffs?:p: Bit of a scary thought!

Re: WikiLeaks
 

That's just the genetic modification they do via the chip....