Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
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.
|
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.
Join CF
You are here: 
