WikiLeaks

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

To most people, that really goes without saying but I guess in your case it doesn't. What you are implying, is that since Assange has delayed returning to Sweden, then we can jump to conclusions. I don't think so.

We do have the fact that the US haven't started an extradition request.

Already addressed in my previous post above.

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.

Rubbish. Without the facts you're speculation about Assange's actions are nothing but hear'say, and possibly libel.
And for your information, its not that there "may" be facts we don't know about, we "genuinely" don't have them !

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

Its not just that we don't have all the facts Damian, its that we have "too few facts" to draw any definitive conclusions.

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).

Completely irrelevant. I was talking about the US extraditing Assange from the UK to the US (instead of to Sweden), and you're telling me the third party requires the first party's permission. You don't say.

Where are these facts in your post?

I already stated that we don't have them, and I for one never claimed to have the facts. Nice try though, even if you do choose to throw your toys out the pram at my insistence you can't have a virtual Assange lynching because you don't have the facts to draw any definitive conclusions.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I already stated that we don't have them, and I for one never claimed to have the facts. Nice try though, even if you do choose to throw your toys out the pram at my insistence you can't have a virtual Assange lynching because you don't have the facts to draw any definitive conclusions.

Like Assange himself in his speech last Sunday, you seek to muddy the waters by addressing everything except the substantive issue.

Julian Assange, in the words of Dan Hodges who I linked to above, has had his extradition request

... affirmed, confirmed and reaffirmed by three independent UK courts. Never mind that it is Sweden, regularly and religiously worshipped as the cradle of liberal social democracy, that has made the request for that extradition. It’s about WikiLeaks. And WikiLeaks supersedes all.

Do you believe this legal, ratified extradition should go ahead, or not?

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

I'd certainly be nutty to expect any better from a lynch mob Chris. If you go back and actually read my post, I never said that extradition is *so* good they can't afford to use it, they simply don't *need* to.

In the absence of any extradition to Sweden, then they could go ahead and decide whether or not to extradite Assange from the UK. I'm no legal expert, but even I can see they don't need to do this.

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.

13 pages of rubbish Chris. Pure conjecture, with very few facts, one could paint the discussion any way they chose, based on one's own prejudices rather than definitive facts. Excuse me whilst I reserve my judgement until a person has been proved guilty as alleged.

---------- Post added at 16:03 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Do you believe this legal, ratified extradition should go ahead, or not?

I'm inclined to believe that this case is politically motivated.
If too you believed it was politically motivated (for the aforementioned reasons), do you think this legal, ratified extradition should go ahead?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

He is innocent until proven guilty. However, the fact he has run to several countries (the UK and Ecuador effectively) rather than argue that innocence in court is, shall we say, odd. It could be taken to imply feelings of guilt.

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.

The same goes both ways. To paraphrase you: "I find it a rather interesting lesson in human psychology, how so many people, through their own prejudices (ie. don't like the US, US Government or any large Government, etc) only see what they want to in this case whilst ignoring the rest."

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I'm inclined to believe that this case is politically motivated.
If too you believed it was politically motivated (for the aforementioned reasons), do you think this legal, ratified extradition should go ahead?

I'd be surprised if it was politically motivated.

Here's why. Depending on who you believe, Assange is either in a position to do real damage, or he isn't. If he is, then the people involved are likely to want him out of the picture ASAP. The quickest way to do this would be to let him stand trial for the crime of which he is accused.

If he isn't in a position to cause real damage (as Stella Rimmington appeared to be implying the other day), then the powers that be probably aren't any more bothered by him than they are by a lot of people.

Another way at looking at it is that if the US do want to extradite him (and we have seen no evidence they have started proceedings - I am certain the Assange camp would make a lot of noise if they had), and they succeed, they will make him a Martyr. They don't want that. A Martyr is often a more powerful call to arms than almost anything else.

In the meantime, if the papers submitted to court are accurate, we have two women who have been raped, and their attacker (be it Assange or anyone else) is running free. How is that fair?

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Stuart

He is innocent until proven guilty. However, the fact he has run to several countries (the UK and Ecuador effectively) rather than argue that innocence in court is, shall we say, odd. It could be taken to imply feelings of guilt.

The rest of the information we have doesn't seem to paint that picture, he has given a statement, the case was dropped, reopened without explanation, and some reports suggest this was on the insistence of the police, not the alleged victims. This is also, shall we say, odd.

The same goes both ways. To paraphrase you: "I find it a rather interesting lesson in human psychology, how so many people, through their own prejudices (ie. don't like the US, US Government or any large Government, etc) only see what they want to in this case whilst ignoring the rest."

Haha. I like that. Another attempt to pigeon hole me, many have tried Stuart. Good luck. I don't have prejudices, I just call things how I see them.
My parents were US military, I've lived all over the world, much of that time on military bases in foreign countries. And yes Im a US citizen working in the UK.
But because I may disagree with you then I'm automatically one of the tin hatters trying to bring down the US government. Yes, I like that.

Pure fantasy though. I live in the real world, where things don't happen exactly as they say in the papers, or even as governments claim. People lie, governments lie, the media lies.
Corruption is everywhere. However, only a fool would think that any country that replaces the US as the worlds only superpower, would behave any differently.
I'd much prefer the US in charge, than China in charge, wouldn't you?
Anyway, the corruption and lies are here to stay, whoever our paymasters are.

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

I'd be surprised if it was politically motivated.

Here's why. Depending on who you believe, Assange is either in a position to do real damage, or he isn't. If he is, then the people involved are likely to want him out of the picture ASAP. The quickest way to do this would be to let him stand trial for the crime of which he is accused.

If he isn't in a position to cause real damage (as Stella Rimmington appeared to be implying the other day), then the powers that be probably aren't any more bothered by him than they are by a lot of people.

Another way at looking at it is that if the US do want to extradite him (and we have seen no evidence they have started proceedings - I am certain the Assange camp would make a lot of noise if they had), and they succeed, they will make him a Martyr. They don't want that. A Martyr is often a more powerful call to arms than almost anything else.

I agree with you there, but I'm not sure what the US plan to do with Assange. Martyrdom would be a disaster for the US in my view.

In the meantime, if the papers submitted to court are accurate, we have two women who have been raped, and their attacker (be it Assange or anyone else) is running free. How is that fair?

If Assange is guilty in any way of raping someone, then he should feel the full force of the law, no doubt in my mind about that whatsoever.

But if he isn't, I doubt justice will ever be done for him because it looks to me that the character assassination is just about complete.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I'm inclined to believe that this case is politically motivated.
If too you believed it was politically motivated (for the aforementioned reasons), do you think this legal, ratified extradition should go ahead?

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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

The rest of the information we have doesn't seem to paint that picture, he has given a statement, the case was dropped, reopened without explanation, and some reports suggest this was on the insistence of the police, not the alleged victims. This is also, shall we say, odd.

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

Haha. I like that. Another attempt to pigeon hole me, many have tried Stuart. Good luck. I don't have prejudices, I just call things how I see them.

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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!

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

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.

[Tezcatlipoca]

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

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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".

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

The rest of the information we have doesn't seem to paint that picture, he has given a statement, the case was dropped, reopened without explanation, and some reports suggest this was on the insistence of the police, not the alleged victims. This is also, shall we say, odd.

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.