Slashdot Mirror
Ecuador To Grant Assange Political Asylum
NSN A392-99-964-5927 writes with news that Ecaudor will grant Julian Assange's request for political asylum. An Ecuador official told The Guardian that the country's president, who earlier indicated his decision would arrive after the Olympic Games, will approve the request Assange made in June.
"Government sources in Quito confirmed that despite the outstanding legal issues Correa would grant Assange asylum – a move which would annoy Britain, the US and Sweden. They added that the offer was made to Assange several months ago, well before he sought refuge in the embassy, and following confidential negotiations with senior London embassy staff. The official with knowledge of the discussions said the embassy had discussed Assange's asylum request. The British government, however, 'discouraged the idea,' the offical said. The Swedish government was also 'not very collaborative,' the official said. The official added: 'We see Assange's request as a humanitarian issue. The contact between the Ecuadorean government and WikiLeaks goes back to May 2011, when we became the first country to see the leaked US embassy cables completely declassified ... It is clear that when Julian entered the embassy there was already some sort of deal. We see in his work a parallel with our struggle for national sovereignty and the democratisation of international relations.'"
Good for Assange and good for Ecuador.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I bet they'd be just as welcoming if it was their own internal governmental communications that were leaked...
First, he'll have to learn to drive on the other side of the road. Then a crash course in Spanish won't hurt.
Here's a starter:
Alto! = Stop!
Tus papeles por favor = Your papers please
A Latin American country is providing safe harbor for a journalist who dared to expose top-secret documents on the military. Someone needs to rework the "In Soviet Russia..." meme for juntas.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Because every time there's a plane crash, a conspiracy is somewhere behind it.
I love my sig.
While there are certainly many mysteries surrounding polish president's death, it was well after Poland joined EU in 2004.
You almost had him!
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Still waiting for my own country, the US, to put up or shut up as to whether he bribed the leaker or not, the only legimitate criminal charge it could levy.
Regarding free speech, "I will not compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
As easy as it may be to pull off logistically, it's not nearly as simple politically. Which is why this dog & pony show has gone on so long. If it were as simple as a plane crash or a fuckton of missles or a drone strike, he'd already be dead.
Of course, Ecuador can expect to be brought before some trumped up UN committee and sanctioned for this soon.
Ya because no covert intelligence agency anywhere has ever used a Honey trap.....
And to think most in the US view South America as some backwards "third world" with no freedom and the US is the freest country in the world.
Interesting how quickly things change.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
so... you are saying to grant him asylum after he has turned himself over to the people he is afraid of being imprisoned by? that makes no sense
What's really so mysterious about controlled flight into terrain under bad weather/visibility conditions? It's not like it's the first time that sort of thing happens.
Assange is a political refugee, he needs a hide out because a large and a very powerful organisation (and more than one) are after him for disseminating information that those powerful organisations want to keep quiet.
If Assange falls in the hands of American government, he is going to be made an example of, and it's going to be worse than Vietnam for him, sort of like what they did to Bradley Manning but maybe times 10.
Isn't it amazing, 60 years ago people wouldn't have believed if somebody told them, that America could become this....
You can't handle the truth.
Ecuador is taking a startlingly appropriate and laudable position here, IMHO.
If he has been exonerated (or has served his time), why would he need asylum?
Offering someone asylum doesn't magically transport them out of jail and into Ecuador. Once the Swedish authorities have their hands on him I would imagine that it would be difficult to give him asylum. Even if he is found not guilty of the charges in Sweden they may very well hand him straight to the US without releasing him.
Poland has been one of the more enthusiastic new EU members.
Let the man stand trial in Sweden and then - pending the outcome - offer him asylum.
Asylum from what, exactly?
Because anyone in their right mind recognized it was a bogus charge and an obvious setup from the get-go.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Ya because no covert intelligence agency anywhere has ever used a Honey trap...
And not at all suspicious that we have a known CIA operative - And a close friend of hers - as the women involved here.
That doesn't mean he didn't do it, but when it comes to "benefit of the doubt", he definitely gets it in this case.
logic fail. you converted "there exists a" to "for all".
Sweden assisted the US in extrajudicial rendition and had police turn over two egyptian guys straight to the CIA for transport to torture. The Swedish minister of 'Justice' at the time, Thomas Bodström, who most likely knew about and ok'd the illegal rendition at the time coincidentally runs a law firm together with the representative of the women who brought the allegations.
Not to say that it's a conspiracy, but one can understand why there's a certain reluctance to trust Sweden. It's become a banana republic complicit in torture run by a frat club of criminals.
You're a DUPE. The NSA killed the Pole, and EVERYONE knows it. You're a capatalist dupe.
This is a trumped up accusation of rape, disclaimed by the victims, dropped by the proscutor, and only reopened under political pressure from the US. He can't expect a fair trial any more than he could expect a fair indictment.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Do you think he could have snook out of the Ecuadorean embassy with the Olympians? I mean, what was the purpose of wait for the Olympics to finish?
He could be in Ecuador already.
I am not very tin foil hat-ish (Im abig believer is stupidity and selishness being the root of most issues), but even I think he is being setup. Maybe not setup in the traditional sense, but the US is pressuing Sweden to nial him to the cross if they can on any charge they can when the oppurtunity arose (thus the charge being reduced then reinstated).
I cannot speak to the veracity, but I found several sources on Google that indicated that the 'rape' was having sex without a condom. That the sex was completely consensual (if foolish). Again, I dont have stats, but how many men go to jail is sweeden every year for doing a woman (or in this case 2 women) bareback. With their concent.
It is possible I suppose that they withdrew consent as some sources claim, but that becomes a he-said she-said thing. Add to that the fact that neither woman seemed phased by the encounters until they talked to each other and it becomes even more fishy and sounds like sour grapes.
Add to THAT the pressure the US government is surely putting on the Swedes, and you have a nice little setup.
The entire thing has oddity written all over it, and frnakly as much as I think the guy is an arrogant douchebag, I would do the same thing in his situation.
If it was you or I, then generally I would agree with you. However when you're considered the enemy he is by the US, Sweden, et al, you need to not only think of your next step but your next several as well as your exits. Regardless of if he might be exonerated in Sweden, I don't think the likelihood of him continuing to live a life of freedom would exist as he'd promptly be handed over to US authorities.
It's also worth noting that he hasn't even been charged with a crime in Sweden. He's only wanted for questioning. If anyone else raped/molested/sexually assaulted multiple people, I'm sure the police would like to question the accuse but I don't think it's going to hold up their case if the accused doesn't say anything or refuses to come in. They are either going to charge em, or not.
If it was what the rest of the world considers rape and there weren't so many questions surrounding the 'victim''s apparent reluctance to cooperate with the prosecution, I might agree.
What he is charged with is what most of the world would call 'turning out to be a douche the morning after'.
At least three things in that last sentence don't correlate, Poland was and is overwhelmingly for the EU, they were already a member by the time the plane crash happened and the crash was on Russian soil, a country that is not so happy with Poland getting cosier with the West.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
He can only be granted asylum if he can get to or is on Ecaudor and likely the last chance he had to do so was before he was taken into custody.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
So, I heard Ecuador is chock full of weapons of mass destruction...
What's really so mysterious about controlled flight into terrain under bad weather/visibility conditions? It's not like it's the first time that sort of thing happens.
Funny how often CFIT happens when the US Govt. sees fit
Set your phasers on "funky"!
wow, Google. Bravo!
I also found some sources on Google. They indicated I could increase my penis size by five inches! Tripling it!
Why would the US govt see fit to assassinate the rabidly pro-US Polish leadership?
So, how to uncover the corrupt?
Listen to Assange's side of the story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9309000/9309320.stm
He isn't wanted for a crime in Sweden, only for "questioning" by a prosecutor. He was in Sweden for 5 weeks following the alleged incidents so there was ample opportunity for this. When he left, he wasn't running from the Swedish authorities like a fugitive. He's also willing to speak with the Swedish prosecutor, but he didn't want to go back to Sweden to do it.
I think this reeks of conspiracy.
Actually, it's because of such simplistic stereotypes about how rape victims are supposed to behave that so many sexual assaults still go unreported. Once you know that most rapes are committed by people the victim knew, you can understand why not all victims immediately go to the police. It's perfectly understandable that, if they had already had consensual intercourse before, the alleged victim would feel bad about what happened afterward if she did not agree to having sex without a condom but did not immediately report it. It's a common reaction and victims often need the help of their family or friends to fully understand what has happened to them and realize that it was rape. The fact that they "didn't seem phased" doesn't mean much, as there are many cases of rape victims dating and having subsequent intercourse with their rapist (clear-cut example: all those who were victims of marital rape).
See for references to published research: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_victim_responses_sexual_assault.pdf
Everybody knows that Julian Assange is in the Outlands along with that mysterious yellow family that always seems to get up to hijinks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQbXvHEMxyk
Ya because no moderately (in)famous man has ever raped or sexually assaulted a woman.
Apparently the story from the Guardian is false.
https://rt.com/news/assange-granted-asylum-ecuador-298/
It is sad that so few people understand this.
The number one cause of plane crashes are indeed conspiracies.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
US telling Russia "I scratched your back, now you scratch mine"
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE DUUUUUUDE
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
he was placed under house arrest. Why didn't the US extradite him then? Why would Sweden extradite him before he can stand trial for crimes allegedly committed in Sweden?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Figures you'd be the one to say this is a "good" thing, Hatta. ;-)
Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224
Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange
Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html
Oh, I know that in your world Ecuador is probably some kind of panacea — but this really just shows Assange's true colors (and those of anyone who can't see anything in conflict between concepts like "free speech" and "Ecuador") in spades.
Don't worry. From there he can easily come to Brazil. We have never extradited anyone to US and won't start anytime soon. South America is probably the best place in the world for him to run. Nobody here likes US (and that includes most governments)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19951219&id=vkVWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=c-sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3374,4969784
However, you douches made it the only option. By hounding him you ensure that he has to cut a deal.
Way to go, douche bags.
Come on guys. Correct the typo in the name of th Ecuador country.
When he's on the Embassy grounds he's on Ecuadorian soil, when he's in the Ambassador's limo on the way to the airport he's on Ecuadorian soil (Diplomatic plates, cops can't stop it), When he steps from the limo directly on the steps of a Ecuadorian State aircraft he's on Ecuadorian soil.
So what's the problem with leaving the UK?
Oh look, somebody else who's sure it's a conspiracy, who hasn't bothered to actually fucking read the actual fucking European Arrest Warrant, or educate himself about how the process works.
The 4 charges he is wanted for questioning in relation to include at least 2 incidents that would *absolutely* be considered rape and sexual assault in most of the rest of the world.
Wait, let me guess your response: "hurr durr sexy by surprise lol justice4assange"?
My understanding is he is in the Ecuadorean Embassy. International law/convention grants Ecuador soverign control over this property, as well as any diplomatic envoy transitting between same and an international passageway (such as an airport, sea-port or border-crossing).
If the Ecuadorian government puts him in a limo of theirs and drives him to an international airport. As far as diplomatic/international relations are concerned, there's not much authorities can do about it (legally).
From there he's free to board an Ecuadorian diplomatic transport and return there to live out however many days he has left there...
-AC
Only on Slashdot, will Hatta's unsupported conspiracy ravings get modded "+5, Informative."
Thanks for demanding a high standard of proof in your "facts," Slashdot! It's why I keep on reading!
Is there a person alive right now who is living a more interesting life than Julien Assange? I'm not calling him a hero or a villain, I'm just saying that I can't think of anyone alive who's actual life would fit so well in a movie thriller.
Hi poster
There is a lot of excellent first-hand information here about which country has which amenities or pluses, but note that most people in this community (educated, well-off) will likely discuss their country with biased, irrational optimism (ex- don't worry about US debt, it will never be a problem!).
There is a startling correlation between economic freedom and quality of life. I would look at this list of countries:
http://www.heritage.org/index/default
and pick whichever one is easiest for you to re-locate to (or in general), and preferably whichever country has INCREASING economic freedom.
For your convenience, the top 5 are Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland.
The whole thing would have been over ages ago if he'd just gone to Sweden to answer the questions. Only the conspiracy nutjobs thinks it was a US plot to execute him. When Ecuador looks like a better democractic country than Sweden then you know someone's been drinking too much of the koolaid.
He is in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK and Ecuador just granted him asylum.
Political persecution which is actually what asylum is supposed to be available for.
Yes, the GP was saying let him go to Sweden first then give him asylum. I am saying that won't really work.
Care to point out which one?
Because UK cannot extradite him except to Sweden as they were first and some other rules on extradition. In the EU people still follow the laws somewhat even though they let CIA and others operate beyond the law from time to time.
Yeah, the millions of men who didn't agree to sex without hormonal birth control could use some help to realize what happened to them too. Lots of rapists at large... Oh, that's right, your definition of rape is utter bullshit.
"For the past 10 years, Ecuador has been trapped in a downward spiral of political conflict and instability that has eroded the rule of law and kept the country perched on the brink of breakdown. At the time of writing, newly elected president Rafael Correa is weathering a political storm caused by his controversial strategy of bending elected and independent government branches, including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) and congress, to his will regarding his plans for a constituent assembly"
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/countries-crossroads-2007/ecuador
He isn't wanted for a crime in Sweden, only for "questioning" by a prosecutor.
Swedish prosecutors (apparently) can't charge someone 'in absentia', according to other stories on the subject.
He was in Sweden for 5 weeks following the alleged incidents so there was ample opportunity for this. When he left, he wasn't running from the Swedish authorities like a fugitive. He's also willing to speak with the Swedish prosecutor, but he didn't want to go back to Sweden to do it.
Of course, a Swedish prosecutor travelling to London would not be enough to allow Swedish charges to be levied against him.
I think this reeks of conspiracy.
Not all conspiracies are carried out by governments.
Ya I think the geeks need to do a bit more research on rape victims and what goes on. The near universal geek reaction seems to be "This is such bullshit, he didn't rape her, she's a liar clearly!" Well my sister, who is getting a PhD in sociology relating to women's issues has a rather different view: She says ya, she could see this being true. Assange is clearly a person with boundary issues, and the way the victims have acted is quite consistent with how many women act, including ones she's interviewed.
None of that means it is true, of course, just that it passes her "smell test" for something that could be true. She also does have a bit of experience with such a thing given that she actively does research in it.
I think there needs to be a bit of mind-opening for geeks with regards to this. Certainly don't pre-suppose guilt but consider that it is possible. If you don't think the women acted "like they should" then it means you need to do more research as to how women ACTUALLY act in such cases. No surprise, it is quite varied.
an admitted sock-puppeteer posts random regurgitated speculation and scores +4? what the hell is going on here - did he manage to score mod points with his sock puppets and use those to push this score up?
personal ego building tool?
wtf are you talking about?
He's *in* Ecuador. Embassies are considered as part of the country they represent, I believe.
All we need wait for now is his fast-tracking to Ecuadorian citizenship, Ecuador hiring him as a cultural attaché, and then he can come and go as he pleases. All the UK can then do is eject him back to his country.
At least that's how it would play out in a Ludlum novel. I have no idea what the realities are under international "law" :-)
Hmm. This is the first time I've heard that the women are known to have ties to the CIA.
Got a citation for that?
Indeed. Why not give the +5 to a half-assed comment from an AC? Right?
It astonishes me how naive people can be. After what happened in the Piratebay trial it should be obvious that the Swedish government bows to US interests whenever it is convenient to them.
No there isn't that "need". It is no coincidences the accusations appeared when he became an inconvenient to US. It is beyond obvious that there is a political agenda here.
The "covert CIA operative" line is the most "jumped the shark" accusation in this whole fiasco. Do you actually know where that comes from? It's because Ardin once wrote two anti-Castro articles for a magazine Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas, which is put out by a group, Misceláneas de Cuba, which according to some professor, is itself funded by a Swedish organization (unnamed), which is connected with Union Liberal Cubana, which is led by led by Carlos Alberto Montaner, which a Wordpress article says is connected with the CIA. Oh, and she met with a women's right group in Cuba who once had a parade in Florida wherein an accused plane bomber marched next to Maria Carey. Therefore, she's a CIA operative! I kid you not.
Can you Assange fans please get back in touch with reality here and step out of the echo chamber for once? Start with the judgement.
We're practicing our labials.
You're mixing things up. The regulation is that to extradite him *from* Sweden, the UK would also have to sign off on it (that would be, two countries would need to approve). It's a quirk of European Arrest Warrants. From the UK, only the UK has to approve extradition to the US. There is no priority, since the US would not be applying under the European Arrest Warrant system.
We're practicing our labials.
And amazingly, did that only based on the statements of Assange, his defense teams, and his legion of millions of fans! Clearly the fact that two separate courts in the UK, including the UK high court, means that the UK court system is in on a giant American conspiracy because, hey, Assange, his defense team, and his fans say the charges are ridiculous, and if they're ridiculous, then the only way the charges could be confirmed would be a conspiracy. See how the logic works?
The concept that, hey, defense teams and defendents spin cases toward their perspective (in this case, playing so hard and loose with the facts that one of Assange's attorneys is lucky he didn't get charged with perjury), doesn't seem to have occurred to any of you.
We're practicing our labials.
I know... it's one of those "why even bother" things. You know they'll never read the actual charges, you know they'll never read the court ruling against him.... they'll just keep saying "It's sex without a condom and they didn't decide it was rape until they got jealous and the prosector is a feminist with an agenda and the girls are CIA plants!" and on and on.
We're practicing our labials.
How about you read the actual charges and the lower court ruling, which was upheld by the UK high court, mmmkay?
Or are conspiracies just too much fun?
We're practicing our labials.
Wrong. Diplomatic immunity protects people, not vehicles. Police can still stop a vehicle with diplomatic plates. And the UK most definitely will. Now, the police aren't allowed to search a "diplomatic pouch", but people have tried to smuggle other people in diplomatic pouches before, and it's never worked.
This whole thing is sheer fantasy. All the experts in the field are pretty much unanimous on this one. There've been some wild proposals for how to move him which might pass legal muster, such as declaring him to be Ecuador's UN ambassador, but he'd haveu to fly first to New York City before he could fly home to Ecuador - and you really think that if he believes all the stuff he's been saying about the lengths the US wants to go to get him, that he'd fly straight into New York City, even if he ostensibly had immunity?
It's not going to happen.
On the other hand, the UK has a number of way to force him out of the embassy - everything from legal maneuvers (embassies are not allowed to take part in operations unrelated to their charter) to outright closing the embassy. Or they could just let him rot inside a little embassy building for the rest of his life, or until he gets sick enough that he has to go to the hospital.
We're practicing our labials.
You know, you could read the actual ruling on the facts of the case, but you know, what fun would that be? Conspiracy theories are so much more fun!
As for what you wrote: The Swedish judicial system has a series of stages which things must go through, and being formally charged is one of the later stages. He can't be formally charged until he's back in Swedish custody. He left when there was a warrant being readied for his arrest during those "five weeks", and he knew about this from his lawyer, as emerged during the trial (with the lawyer being lucky he didn't get hit with a perjury charge over that). He most definitely knew he was running from the law.
We're practicing our labials.
Where's the "No Sources Except Tin Foil Hat Blogs" moderation? Are we so happy to accept this unsubstantiated claim just because it meshes with our prejudices?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
And yet Sweden does not always bow to the US. They would not so readily abandon rule of law over someone like that. The UK would have been far more likely to turn him over if the US had asked even with the realization of the nasty international incident it would have caused, and yet they did not do that and instead held a perfectly legitimate extradition hearing. Maybe some people don't agree with the Swedish law here or think that it's silly that they don't do things like other countries.
And the US clearly will not haul him off to a hidden location forever without a trial, that's just silly, they know they'd be in big trouble internationally and domestically if they tried this. It's only done for terrorists captured on field of battle or while plotting to commit acts of terrorism. Assange is not important or dangerous enough to step into that mess, he's an embarrassment is all.
What should have happened, in the interests of just getting this nasty business cleared up so that Assange can go back to being a forgotten nobody, is that Swedish prosecutors go to UK and question him there, resolve the issues, then let the matter go. It's a loss of face for Sweden though as legally they don't need to do that, no other country has to resort to such a thing. But as is Assange gets his positive PR spin on everything.
Wikileaks started as a secure way to allow whistleblowers to get information out. Along the way Assange turned it into an anti-US and anti-war vehicle. However by posting so many diplomatic cables he has damaged his anti-war stance. Diplomacy is what you do to avoid war, but embarassing so many countries by airing secrets and making all countries distrust any further secret discussions means that war could become more likely. Secrets are necessary even if Assange can't see that. And he said he did not care of Afghan informers were killed in retaliation because he did not want to redact the names like legitimate news organizations did.
But just keep repeating your mantra that Sweden is a puppet regime, that US is the most evil country on the planet with fewer human rights than Ecuador, and that Assange is a hero to children everywhere.
The lawyer for the women involved objected to the UK extradition hearings dropping some part of the case. Is this lawyer just a puppet also, or maybe these women have not dropped the case and still have an interest in it?
Indeed, why not save the fucking mod points to mod up the informed, well-reasoned arguments, instead of "the arguments that make me giggle like a 12 year old watching his first scrambled porno," or "the arguments that confirm my own biases"?
While we're on the subject, though, I'd like my comment above to be modded to "+5, Insightful" - because it's a hell of a lot more Insightful than Hatta's pandering was "Informative."
For a bunch of people who pride themselves on their rational, logical nature, you geeks sure do lose any capacity to be objective or exacting in your standards of evidence when one of your heroes misbehaves. But then, this is the board where a significant portion of the membership was applauding Hans Reiser as a hero and a martyr right up until he actually admitted to murdering his wife. I don't know why Slashdot continues to be able to surprise me.
The "Land of the Stupid" dominates science and technology. It also has great Constitutional freedoms.
The Paraguayan President was ousted in a Contitutional manner, due to his enormous incompetence.
Source?
Assange is being prosecuted for a common crime.
NEVER talk to the cops. Don't answer their questions. Don't listen to them ask.
American jobs pay quite well.
Duh, Americans pay taxes.
Oh please. This is ridiculous hyperbole. The USA is so radically pro-freespeech that it allows ***hats to offend people in funerals.
How is American media worse than anywhere else?
Except that entrepreneurial geniuses (like Elon Musk) go to the USA.
And American Universities are full of bright Indians, Chinese, etc.
Sweden is a first-world democracy, with duly separated branches of government.
The Swedish judges are entirely independent from the ambassadors. They come from separated branches of the government.
Not entirely relevant, but: I just want to say that having seen your name attached to a substantial part of the reasoned, articulate commentary I've read here over the past few days, I wanted to tell you I appreciate the efforts you've made to construct coherent arguments.
Given some of the things you said, I suspect our outlooks and beliefs might diverge wildly, but your voice has been one of the few thoughtful & interesting ones in several of the discussions I've seen you participating in lately - so, thanks for taking the time to make actual arguments based on actual facts, rather than transparent attempts at pandering to the masses for a +5.
Sweden is a first world democracy with duly separated branches of government.
The USA doesn't manipulate Sweden's judicial branch.
By the way, if you claim this to be a conspiracy, then don't complain when some conservative claims that Obama's nationality is hidden.
If you start believing in conspiracies, you must give your opponents the same right.
I, myself, deny conspiracies.
Sure. I'm sure, you being such a well-informed dude, you're already aware that there are FOUR allegations he's wanted for questioning about, but I'll reprint them here from this judgement, in case you've forgotten the details in your rush to exonerate Mr. Assange.
Now, this is - at a minimum - assault, if she didn't wish to be restrained the way he did. If he was penetrating her while restraining her against her wishes, this would be rape.
He violated the condition of her consent - that a condom be used. Therefore, he did not have her consent. Having sex with someone, when you knowingly violate the conditions that they place on their consent, is rape. In any civilized country in the world, it's rape.
Again, if she was unwilling to be touched this way... and she expressed that wish to him... this is, at a minimum, assault.
Having unprotected sex with an unconscious woman who has specifically expressed a wish that a condom be used in any sexual act most definitely qualifies as rape in pretty much any civilized society, as well.
So now why don't you tell us how and why these allegations, if true, would not constitute rape and/or sexual assault. Also, bear in mind that consent for sex in one circumstance does not give you unlimited license to do anything you want, at any time you want, as many times as you want, with the other person's body. If she withdraws her consent, or has stated clear conditions for her consent, and you willingly and knowingly disregard them and force her to continue, you have, at a minimum, assaulted her; if you actually succeed in achieving intercourse, then you are raping her.
Now, this is - at a minimum - assault, if she didn't wish to be restrained the way he did. If he was penetrating her while restraining her against her wishes, this would be rape.
Taken out of context. She seemed to be consenting, then when he went to consummate the act, she stopped him and said she wanted him to use a condom. So he put a condom on. At least that's what SHE says happened. That isn't considered rape anywhere else.
He violated the condition of her consent - that a condom be used. Therefore, he did not have her consent. Having sex with someone, when you knowingly violate the conditions that they place on their consent, is rape. In any civilized country in the world, it's rape.
Translation, he did use a condom as she asked, but it broke. Not considered rape anywhere else.
Again, if she was unwilling to be touched this way... and she expressed that wish to him... this is, at a minimum, assault.
They had been in a sexual relationship for a week by then (including after counts one and two, so she apparently wasn't thinking of those as rape at the time). So he came on to her and she wasn't in the mood. Not considered rape anywhere else.
Having unprotected sex with an unconscious woman who has specifically expressed a wish that a condom be used in any sexual act most definitely qualifies as rape in pretty much any civilized society, as well.
Translation, he came on to her in the middle of the night when she had been asleep. Not considered rape anywhere else.
It is noteworthy that the 'victim' seems not to be all that happy to see charges filed even though she obviously has the full backing of the state behind her. She acts as if she doesn't feel raped. It seems that she is now being compelled to cooperate in the proceedings.
It also seems that the authorities in Sweden didn't consider any of that rape until he had already left the country with their blessings.
Call it rape if you want, but in doing so you risk belittling the victimization of women who truly were raped in the sense of having sexual contact forced upon them against their will.
Sweden may not extradite him to US, but then again it may, and you can't guarantee it won't anymore than I can guarantee it will.
And US doesn't need to make him disappear or bring him to an unknown location. They will just judge him by their draconian espionage laws and "legally" condemn him there, and in the meanwhile they will make anything they can stick to him.
Wikileaks is what wikileaks members want it to be. You may not like it. It is your prerrogative, but there are those who support it and it is there to stay. Contrary to your belief it is not Wikileaks that "embarrasses so many countries" it is those countries diplomatic ineptitudes and their dirty games. It is past time for the world to know US for what it is a dirty and manipulative government, and if they are so offended by this image it is a great opportunity to change their attitude.
People don't agree with you. Get over it.
Yes, the US. A country that refuses to allow any of it's citizens to face war crimes. Very sweet.
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/8-3-02HRWBushSignsASPA.pdf
Wikileaks has had members pushed out too.
The US could extradite if it wanted too. There's no logical reason to go through this circuitous route to extradite him via Sweden.
If the US did make him "disappear" it would be widely known, they could not hold him without trial without it being known. They could not do this quietly, the US citizens would be angry and the rest of the world would be angry. So they won't do it. Contrary to opinions of some the US government is not a police state or dictatorship and has to worry about its image to the voting public and its trading partners.
The embarrassments did not just come from dirty games, it came from memos where a diplomatic confidentially revealed what was thought about a third party. Diplomacy must happen in secret. This was not just about US as you seem to hate and despise, but all countries who had diplomatic relations, all of it was released. Wikileaks made no attempt to read through the data and release the important stuff and keep back others, they released it all without knowing what was there.
If you are a US citizen then contact your representative to try to improve things; it's a democracy still unless you're too blinded by hate to think otherwise. If you're not a US citizen then contact politicians in your own country to put diplomatic pressure on the US. This will do far more good than promoting a silly conspiracy theory.
I see. So you were in the room, and know that a completely reasonable explanation exists that exonerates Mr. Assange on all 4 charges?
When the girl you're with says "use a condom," and you pin her down and try to force yourself on her without one, that is an attempted rape. And that is *exactly* what the allegation is. (That he prevented her from reaching for a condom and only reluctantly agreed to put one on after she struggled against him.) Certainly, "the condom broke, it was a total accident," may be a *defense* against that allegation - but it does not excuse his attempt to have sex with her without the condom. She said "no," he continued trying to have sex with her by pinning her and trying to force himself on her.
The middle of the night scenario, again, was that she woke up to him having sex with her, and that she asked him if he was wearing a condom, and he said "No." This, despite her earlier and repeated insistence that he wear a condom. He initiated sex in a way that he *knew* she wouldn't have consented to while she was in a state where she couldn't give consent. This viewpoint you're espousing suggests that you'd consider roofies a valid solution for getting sex from your girlfriend after you've had a fight, too.
These allegations indicate that he *forced* himself on these women. The only way the TRUTH of the allegations can be determined is if he goes to Sweden, has his interview with the police, and charges are filed (or investigation closed) as a result. But since he is resisting doing that with every scrap of energy he has, it's possible that will never happen, and that the spectre of these charges will follow him around for the rest of his life.
Now, since I provided you with actual information on the actual charges, to enlighten and edify you, maybe you can substantiate your claim that "It is noteworthy that the 'victim' seems not to be all that happy to see charges filed, even though she obviously has the full backing of the state behind her. She acts as if she doesn't feel raped. It seems that she is now being compelled to cooperate in the proceedings."
Can you offer any reports that support that interpretation of events that are NOT wild-ass speculation based on anonymous sources cited in the 2010 story originally posted on Crikey.com? The same story that had zero follow-up, zero factual reporting to support it, and was simply a pile of speculative bullshit based on the fact that one of the women appears to have joined up with a christian missionary group to do work in the Palestinian territories, but has issued no official statement herself (or through police) that she is refusing to cooperate and wants to forget the allegations?
In your mockery of concern for "belittling victimization of women who were truly raped," it's odd that you don't notice how condescending your entire viewpoint is: in seeking to trivialize allegations of rape to protect your fanciful image of your hero, you ARE belittling the victimization of women who truly were raped - because if the charges are true, these women *were* raped.
And, in turn, I presume *you* were in the room. I at least bothered to read the news reports including what the women had to say and noting that initially Swedish authorities were so convinced there was nothing to prosecute that they told him he was free to leave the country. I am aware that re-opening the matter was considered unusual at the time. It's also a bit strange that the authorities were unwilling to accept his statements at the embassy considering that charges are not yet filed.
It's funny the way you reverse cause and effect repeatedly in an effort to see the worst but fail totally to explain why the women returned to him night after night for more of the same. That seems a bit unusual to say the least.
But as I said, feel free to believe whatever you care to.
But first, read this.
seeing as South America has, in the past, been an exceedingly hospitable hiding place for Nazi war criminals, I applaude Mr Assanges choice of bolthole. As they say, "Birds of a feather flock together".
And he seemed such a nice chap......
(Tongue so far in cheek that its in danger of burrowing through into the outside world)
You are saying that in Brazil, lying to get sex is a crime? The entire country would be in jail.
Lets not forget the the rape charge in Sweden would be laughed out of court in the rest of the world. Hell, in most countries, if a woman made the charges made, the police would arrest HER for wasting the police time and slander. Check the charges. They are insane, never mind they were not prosecuted in Sweden until the Swedes needed something to stick Assange with at the behest of their American masters.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You are aware that in the normal world (any place that is not Sweden) lying to get sex is not actually a crime? If it was, 99% of men would in jail. The remaining 1% are catholic priests and they would be in jail for raping kids.
Assange played two women. That is what ALL this is about. There is NO way this would stand up in any court expect in Sweden and then only because the Americans told them to do something.
Only right wing nutcases pretend the case against Assange has any merit whatsoever.
Oh and the two women involved already knew each other. AND the case had already been dismissed before the Americans got involved.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You are just a right winger. Read the charges, if you can read, there is no mention of sexual assault as it is understood in the rest of the world.
Only right wingers are pretending the "rape" charges have anything to do with rape. Don't pretend to be anything else but a right wing scumbag.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You seem very focussed on the judgement, and have claimed once already that because two courts were involved in the decision it's somehow less likely that the decision is biased.
Might I remind you how, on many, many occasions cases that have been escalated through a number of levels of court in the UK resulting in the same decision at each level have then been overturned when challenged in the inherently much more objective court - the European Court of Human Rights? The ECHR was created precisely because after the war, and as a result of what happened to German jews etc., there needed to be a place where people could hold their own government and judiciary to account if they believed they were a victim of injustice in their own country. The fact that the ECHR has overturned a number of UK court decisions, and tend to do so a few times a year, suggests that injustice via UK courts is not a particularly rare occurance.
Of course, if you're from the UK you may have also noticed a number of MPs complaining about the ECHR. It's not suprising that these are the same MPs who have little care for true justice, and are often the first to throw it out the window in favour of populist ideologies. The same ones who often have a rather authoritarian and sometimes even fascist ideology on many issues. In other words, the MPs who complain about the ECHR are the same MPs who see little problem with a bent court system. The same MPs who would gladly be happy with a justice system that they can control to give them favourable outcomes when it suits them, even if against the letter of the law.
What makes you so absolutely certain that Assange's case isn't one of these many cases? Your argument that things are being done properly in the UK justice system is based on the demonstrably false premise that the UK justice system is infallible. Many cases each year prove that this is absolutely not the case.
It's pretty clear the British courts do get things wrong, even when pursued through multiple levels of the court system, it's pretty clear there are a number of MPs happy with the idea of political interference in the courts being an acceptable thing. So again, why are you so certain this doesn't happen? why are you so sure the courts have got it right? I see nothing particularly damning in the judgement and if anything, note a number of places where the judge recognises points at which the Swedish authorities have failed to do things correctly, and yet, the judge still ultimately gives them what they want. Perhaps you're right, perhaps the judgement is valid - but that's certainly not the foregone conclusion you're making it out to be, and the link you keep posting absolutely does not make it so.
Because it would be politically untenable and it would be the death knell for the UK's extradition treaty with the US.
It's already undergone years and years of flak because of cases like McKinnon's, and O'Dwyer's. Adding Assange into the mix would force the British government's had to cancel the treaty and let Assange go free. The British people simply would not tolerate another high profile unfair extradition like this, the treaty is already at breaking point in the public's eyes, and it's only a matter of time until parliament has to do something about it anyway, Assange's case would just force them to do something about it immediately and stop delaying.
That and The Pirate Bay raid was carried out at the request of US authorities, and The Pirate Bay trial was presided over by a judge who is a member of a music lobbying organisation and personal friend of the prosecutor in that case.
There's an awful lot of evidence that shows Sweden as being far from the bastion of justice and freedom that it used to be famous as.
Wrong use of phrase "jumped the shark". I kid you not.
Um, yes it is.
You were saying?
We're practicing our labials.
Good for your sister. As a counter anecdote I have a friend who is a journalist for a woman's rights publication, and is hence extremely feminist. She helps organise, publicise, and attends women's rights marches, and is a vocal activist for minority groups in North America where there is a lack of awareness about rape being a common problem. She has done a lot of voluntary work at rape crisis centres, because she herself was raped when at university, and in a rather shocking ordeal - she was drugged and held and repeatedly raped for a 3 day period. I'd say therefore with her own experience, and the experience of those she's worked with, interviewed, and written about, she knows just something about rape, and how women react to it.
She didn't even believe Dominic Strauss Kahn and he ultimately had the charges dropped against him, she was vocal in suggesting it was disgusting that he had been able to use his fortunes to sway public opinion against his accuser. Rightly or wrongly, she believes that someone accused of rape, probably is guilty.
Yet despite all this, even she supports Assange, because she recognises that the claims and actions of the two girls in the Assange case are so petty that it makes a mockery of those who really have been genuinely raped. Similarly, she says her colleagues feel the same.
Your sister may well be studying for a PhD in sociology, she may well have interviewed some victims. But really, it's small fry compared to someone who, as a victim themselves, has been able to help many hundreds of other victims by being able to relate to them, and speak to them in confidence to gain a far better understanding of the events and effects than a sociology student is going to be able to get out of a victim.
Don't assume that you have some high and mighty position that allows you to speak down on the many people who you are disagreeing with. You really don't.
What most people doesn't realize is how oppresive and unfair is Correa's government. This entire asylum provision is nothing more than a political strategy from Correa to make look the 'yankees' bad and post himself as a martyr of a sovereign nation. Correa is pairing up with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales (the one that wants to legalize coke in Bolivia) and so on. This is a new wave of communist / socialists that have done nothing but oppress the population and press. If you guys investigate a little bit, you will see how Correa has put in jail and fined ridiculous fees to newspapers executives that speak wrongly about his government. Most interesting scandal is that one of "El Universo", one of the most popular diaries of my city, Guayaquil. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/120224/ecuador-libel-case-rafael-correa I guess it will be interesting seeing Assange's reaction once he arrives to a country that is currently crippled by oppresive laws which are silencing the press and population in favor of a corrupt government.
I guess there's not really much point arguing you as the data you've provided perfectly proves my point and yet you seem to have completely missed that, but here goes.
As I stated, it occurs a few times a year, your numbers show that it occurs actually more frequently than once a month which tallies well with what I said (in fact, I thought it was less frequent than that, so if anything it strengthens my point from a few times a year, to more than once a month on average). Quite how you can suggest that once a month isn't a rare occurance I really don't know. Perhaps we have different standards on that, rare, for me, would be maybe once every few years, not more than once a month.
I suppose you could be trying to argue that the ratio of defeats is quite low, and hence imply that the odds are that the ruling in Assange's case is valid, but that's not a strong argument, as it ignores so many factors, the obvious one being that the number of applications is bound to be high, anyone wanting a reduced sentence even when genuinely guilty is bound to give it a go as they have really nothing to lose. In this case though there is a more fundamental point and that is the potential for there being a political conspiracy component to the case- the absolute vast majority of the cases would have no reasonble scope for this, but Assange's case clearly does.
If you could eliminate from those figures all frivolous ECHR appeals, then the number would be a little bit more informative. If you could break down the number to give the percentage of cases where there was scope for a real or alleged political motivated outcome to the British court's decision then it would be even more informative. As it stands though it's really meaningless and proves my point - that you implied suggestion that the UK justice system is infallible, which was the fudnamental presmise of your existing argument, is clearly false. Presumably those deemed inadmissable would likely be the afformentioned frivolous cases, and in that case the percentage finding violation of non-frivolous cases would jump to 55%, which obviously doesn't look as good, but perhaps you can think of a valid argument as to why non-frivolous cases would be dismissed as inadmissable too, hence invalidating this figure. If this figure is correct, and you consider looking at similarly admitted cases, that Assange's case would be admissable, then it implies there's a more than 50% chance that the judgement against Assange is in fact invalid, but this is of course speculation, without further analysis of what was and wasn't admitted we can't say this with any degree of certainty. Either way though, the fact that most admitted cases result in a ruling against the British courts doesn't really do much to backup your argument.
But regardless, try again if you want, all the evidence you've provided so far does not prove what you're trying to imply it proves. In this case the data you've provided tallies rather well with what I said, whilst failing to do anything to prove the point you're trying to make - that you believe the ruling against Assange is unquestionably legitimate. That still isn't even close to proven.
Providing evidence to back up your argument is only a valid discussion tactic if the evidence actually backs up your argument. Thus far everything you've provided does not, despite your implied suggestions to the contrary.
You were quick to criticise suggesting that people who have not read the judgement and imply they're not informed enough to make the comments they're making, but frankly it appears you've not really thought this through particularly well yourself. You're taking away a conclusion from the facts that those facts do not result in, this suggests you're not exactly being very objective about this and are merely trying to backup your own predetermined conclusion.
Paying taxes *is* a requirement for a healthy state. No question.
Here's a question for your un-questionable opinion (notice I didn't say "fact"). If instead of paying taxes, government relied exclusively on voluntary contributions, then wouldn't the result be a government that truly, honestly, accurately represents what the people want, rather than what the people in power want?
Suddenly it doesn't seem so "obvious" that taxing is a prerequisite for civilization, let alone freedom or prosperity.
Assange should set up his own Spandau Prison in the Ecuadorian emabassy right there is London. He'd retain all the press attention and be a damn sight more secure than he ever would be in Ecuador proper, given that if the US will invade a country based on lies, they won't blink in snatching JA from a 'mere' central American country. Though it would be a bit of a tough arguement for him to sell: "Thank you for giving me refuge, but I don't want to go to your actual country as it would never be safe for me."
Is your argument honestly that because some tiny fraction of cases in Britain are brought to the ECHR, and of those, only one-in-200 is found credible, that therefore the British court system can't be trusted? I mean, *really*? Turkey and Russia alone split nearly half of the negative judgements by the EHCR. The UK barely even makes the list.
We're practicing our labials.
!No, no queremos a ese hijueputa aqui! Presunto doble violador andate al diablo. kfc
Believe what you want. Hopefully this will end with him in Ecuador. Then it won't matter whether the U.S. controls the UK and Sweden or not, because the U.S. certainly doesn't control Ecuador.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The whole thing would have been over ages ago if he'd just gone to Sweden to answer the questions.
The whole thing would have been over ages ago if Sweden would guarantee that they would not extradite Assange to the US. Assange requested this assurance and it was refused. Why would they refuse unless they intend to send him to the US? Why would Assange go to Sweden when the indications are that they intend to send him to the US?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
My argument is that your original implication that the UK courts are infallible is clearly false. Your figures prove this.
Your figures also show that of those case that are deemed credible enough for a hearing, over half of them succede in overturning the British court's decision. As I pointed out, this has the implication that if Assange's case was one of those deemed credible, which it almost certainly is due to the fact that:
a) There is large scope for political interest in the case
b) The case touches on points for which no precedence exists, and for which parts of the law are extremely ambiguous (by this I'm referring to the EAW scheme)
Again, looking at other historical cases that have been deemed appropriate for an ECHR hearing, Assange's case would be typical of the type of case that gets heard, note that this is in part, because ECHR admission is in part, decided on based on public interest/government interest. As there is clearly a lot of interest in the Assange case, this would add a lot of weight to his case getting a hearing.
You are still abusing the statistics in that you're still trying to lump in appeals for which there is no merit with appeals for which there is merit. Again, this simply shows that you have made up your mind, are not interested in examining the situation objectively, and are just trying to publicly convince everyone that your predetermined conclusion is correct, using evidence which has no relevance to the correctness of your conclusion. If that makes you feel better then fine, but it doesn't mean your argument actually has any merit in practice.
Your comments about Russia and Turkey are perfectly valid, but also entirely irrelevant. It doesn't really matter that Turkey and Russia are worse than the UK, the point remains that the UK courts are still fallible. To put the issues in the Russia/Turkey cases into context, the whole reason they have more is because Russia/Turkey is failing in even non-controversial cases. For example, Russia has a lot of people being framed for crimes due to their competitors giving payments to corrupt police officers. This isn't, as far as anyone is aware, an issue in the UK and so there is a lot higher confidence in the outcome of more run of the mill cases with no political relevance in British courts than in Russian courts, hence the disparity. This doesn't however mean that the British courts are able to maintain the same level of objectivity when there is political interference in cases (if there is) than when there definitely isn't, this is why the disparity between the relative level of admitted cases between Turkey/Russia and the UK is entirely irrelevant- you're comparing countries with different situations and different issues. Relatively widespread judicial corruption in Russia, does not mean judicial corruption is non-existent in the UK.
Nothing is infallable in this world. Nothing is perfect. But it's hard to beat "one of the best records in the EHCR".
And? What, you expect courts to hear cases that it finds *not* credible? Look at the percentages of cases in the EHCR. Turkey and Russia have big human rights problems in their judicial systems. The UK does not. The statistics bear this out. I'm sorry that you don't like this fact, but it's what the numbers say.
So is the concept that the Earth isn't flat, but that won't stop me from traveling internationally. The argument "It must be 100% perfection or else people I like shouldn't have to face trial" is about as absurd as you can get.
We're practicing our labials.
No the US couldn't extradite him directly in these circumstances, and the US do want to extradite him, rest assured.
And apparently you don't even read what the people you are arguing with write. As I said US don't need to make him disappear. US can legally make his life hell and possibly execute him for espionage if he is brought to its jurisdiction. US is a corporate police state, you are just too naive to realize this.
And no, Diplomacy does not need to be kept secret. It is this kind of thinking that is turning US into a police state.
Where's the "No Sources Except Tin Foil Hat Blogs" moderation? Are we so happy to accept this unsubstantiated claim just because it meshes with our prejudices?
Well now, unfortunately, Ardin and Wilen have have managed to purge the web of all but the most ridiculous information relating to them, so efficiently that most fortune-500 companies can't afford such effective PR. Impressive.
For example, the fact that Anna Ardin wrote her Master's thesis on the use of rape as a weapon - Google that. You'll get tons of hits containing it in the cached summary, and yet, every single one of them seems to go to an unrelated (or redacted) page. You can, however, still find copies of her curiously-no-longer-existant blog where she detailed her "seven steps to revenge".
Or the fact that Ardin's cousin served as deputy head of ops in Afghanistan. Again, cached summaries, but no content actually says that (interestingly, two years ago you could find this information everywhere; today, I can barely find reference to it except one bullet point on a website I wouldn't tend to trust as a source, except insofar that it agrees with a reality that has somehow otherwise vanished).
Or the fact that Ardin spent several years working as an anti-Castro organizer in Cuba, somehow "personally" funding the movement until Cuba deported her - Which I can only find in Spanish (guess her PR whitewashing friends don't speak Spanish) and the occasional snippets here and there.
Or the fact that it horrified Sofia Wilen to learn that the police (and not just any police; not the local police; but rather, a detective Ardin knew personally from an entirely different jurisdiction) had charged Assange with rape, when she (apparently something of a germophobe) only wanted to compel him to get an STD test.
Yep. Completely unsubstantiated - If you require a link from CNN. If you actually dig a bit, a much darker picture appears than that of two girls falling victim to a serial acquaintance-rapist.
It seems you still can't grasp the distinction between frivolous appeals to the ECHR by criminals clutching at straws and genuine appeals, and still have failed to comprehend that in the case of genuine appeals, Britain doesn't have a very good track record at all.
It seems you still fail to get that the ratio of non-frivolous to frivolous appeals in Turkey/Russia is much higher compared to the UK, but that this has no bearing on the success rate of non-frivolous appeals.
Neither of these points are hard to grasp, and I do not believe you are stupid enough to fail to grasp them. I believe you are simply ignoring these points because they weaken your previous assertion that the Assange court case was without fault, despite the fact you cannot actually be sure of that, and it's not simply about 100% perfection as you're trying to suggest. It's about the UK judiciary not having a particularly perfect record in political cases, of which this is certainly one.
Note that I haven't even argued one way or the other whether the Assange case was mishandled or not, I've merely been making the point that there is certainly a feasible possibility that it hasn't, and that hence your assertion that it almost definitely has, does not have quite the solid grounding you have been making out it does- in other words, you've been trying to claim something you have no evidence for, and that the links you have posted do not provide the evidence you imply they do. To put it bluntly, you've been rather at best mistaken to be so assertive in your beliefs, and at worst, been outright dishonest in your posts.
But anyway, if you can't show a basic understanding of what I've been saying which, again, as I say, really isn't difficult to understand if you're willing to be somewhat open minded and consider that the case against Assange may not actually have been handled perfectly as you believe, then I think we're done here as obviously it means you believe only what you want to believe, and a more objective look at the possibilities is not something you are interested in, that is, you have no interest in being objective.
Do I know? Yep, that I do!
She didn't just write two anti-Castro articles - She "personally" (aka via Ulf Bjereld or OneSweden) funded (and to some degree led, until her deluded army of angry young men realized she had goals totally unrelated to their best interests) an organized anti-Castro movement, in Cuba, leading to her eventual deportation.
Please merge any further responses in with my other, far more detailed, response on this topic.
Where we differ I believe, is that you see Russia and the West as completely separate from a political perspective. Is it possible that they work for the same team, at least at certain times? Look at the facts surrounding the plane crash and wonder. Also investigate who funded the Communist party in Russia and for how long they have been funded by "the west".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That video portrays "percentage of adults who believe in angels" as a bad thing; this is bigotry, but because it is politically correct bigotry, then slashdotters think it is a good thing.
Also, the video forgets about the First Amendment; America has considerably more freedom of speech and religion than England (for example), with its "hate speech" legislation.
Also, America has more federalism than most other countries I know.
Also, America has a better demographic future than European countries, because American women still have 2 children per woman. Europeans have only 1.6 children per woman, which will lead, in the long term, to population ageing, shrinking and ossifying.
The USA is a leader in economy, science, technology, sports, and military.
The ultimate conspiracy :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The US won't execute him because they can't do it in secret. If they were going to execute someone they'd have done it with Pvt Manning who is directly responsible for the events and broke laws directly. They won't execute him because it would cause a massive scandal over a guy who's not worth bothering with. There may be jail time for Assange but execution is just beyond all logic.
They can do it. What he did can be considered espionage by US draconian laws and that may end in death sentence, legally. But if it will be 30 years in jail or a death sentence is entirely academic. Either possibility is not something anyone sane would be willing to risk without an overwhelmingly good reason.
I see. So in your world, something is "informative" only if you happen to agree with it, regardless of the facts supporting (or contradicting) the conclusion?
What a dim, sad world you must live in. You should probably just stick to reading Twilight and Harry Potter, friend - I think news & current events is beyond your ken.
Neither of us were in the room, you dumb fuck, and that's the point: He is *accused* of something. He is wanted for questioning in relation to those accusations. Since neither of us were in the room, neither of us is qualified to exonerate or convict him. The disconnect you seem to be having here is that, while I'm arguing that the allegations he is accused of "constitute rape, if they are true," you are jumping through every imaginable hoop to argue why they "aren't true, can't be true, and will never be true, and therefore there's no need for him to answer the questions of investigators, because it's all some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy." Where I am saying, "he should answer these questions, because the allegations are serious," you are saying "The allegations are nonsense and without merit, because... I like Julian Assange."
As for the "charges not yet filed" point - you obviously have zero understanding of how the Swedish legal process works: charges CANNOT be filed until the prosecutors conduct an in-person interview with him to get his side of the story on the allegations. At that point, if the prosecutor feels charges are warranted, charges will be filed, and he will be tried in a court. Until that interview happens, he *cannot* be "charged" under Swedish law. The lack of charges is a procedural element of Swedish law - the EAW that requested his extradition was so that he would be returned to Sweden to be interviewed about the allegations, since he *refused* to return willingly.
Yes, no woman has ever put up with someone abusing her, night after night. No woman has ever been afraid to seek legal help. No woman has ever convinced herself that she wasn't 'really' raped, or decided to just 'go along with it until he leaves,' because that'll be safer. This is the first time, in the history of humanity, that it's ever happened, clearly.
Now I have one question - what fucking world do you live in? If you had read the news stories and court filings, you'd also know that the women both testified that while he was *staying* with them, they terminated sexual contact because of his behavior. In other words, "He's a fucking creep, but he's supposed to be gone in a couple days anyway, so I'll just stay away from him until he leaves."
The only thing unusual about this is that Assange has invented a whopper of a story to explain why he's "afraid" to return to Sweden. "If I return, I'll be whisked away to Guantanamo, because Sweden is the evil lackey of the United States, and has no real interest in abiding by its international commitments to the EU as an EU member state. I know I wanted to come live here in Sweden before this all happened, but now that I might be in trouble, I can't imagine a worse place on earth to live!"
In closing, I'd like you to reread part of my post - the part that reads, "Can you offer any reports that support that interpretation of events that are NOT wild-ass speculation based on anonymous sources cited in the 2010 story originally posted on Crikey.com?"
Your "evidence" offered, via the link to businessinsider.com, reads like so: "The popular Australian website Crikey has a report suggesting that the prosecution of Julian Assange in Sweden may be hitting the skids [...]"
In other words, the BusinessInsider story is simply reporting on the same speculative Crikey report that - once again - had zero followup, zero sources, and zero facts to support it, in the nearly-2-years since the initial story was written. Has any *evidence* emerged to support your claims in those 2 years? Or are you simply holding fast to "Crikey says," and "hurr durr sex by surprise LOL" as your method of exonerating him?
The ONLY story indicating that Ms. Ardin is no longer cooperating
Neither of us were in the room, you dumb fuck
Oh! WOO WOO! You Cuuuuusssssed!! Oooooh, you must hava really big peenis.
So.... according to you its only rape when the victim is beaten, bloody, missing teeth and ....
Who's definition of rape is utter bullshit?
No. People don't agree with you when you say it is was informative, and you have given absolutely no argument to convince them otherwise. You are the one who live in the dim sad and lonely world. The world of self-righteousness.
One-sentence response: given that approximately 0.002% of UK court cases (at the current going rate) are overturned by the ECRH, how on Earth can you possibly claim that this means that there's even remotely probable odds that a random case is problematic?
We're practicing our labials.
Challenge accepted.
Here's Ardin's thesis, titled "The Cuban Multi-Party System: Is The Democratic alternative really democratic and an alternative after the Castro regime?" The word rape does not appear in it.
Oh, really, it's time to look at *everything a person has ever written on the internet*, really? Like you've never written anything that others could use to discredit you online, ever? Really? First off, the "seven steps to revenge" 1) was a repost, 2) begins with, basically, "don't", and is 3) in general about how, if you do, how to cause an ex boyfriend's new girlfriend to break up with him.
Secondly, if you want to take the "anything you've ever written", let's see what Assange thinks about women.
Wow, really Julian? You're a freaking God to women? And do we even need to get into his dating profile, Mr. I AM DANGER, ACHTUNG?
See how this "dig up anything a person has ever written" game works?
Wow, what the frick is up with your "one bullet point on a website" link? It's not a reference to anything - nothing is backed up in any way, shape or form - but man, what a stalker site that is.
You need to work on your reading comprehension on the Mundo article you linked. It says she worked as the head of the Swedish group connected to the party, a party based on peaceful civil disobedience. "Somehow" funding it? It says right there - she funded it "minimally" with the magazine Consenso. Nowhere does it say she was deported. That's only said in the counterpunch article, which the article you linked to describes as riddled with errors. And furthermore, in what f-ed up world does supporting democracy in Cuba mean "CIA agent"? I mean, for crying out loud!
The interrogation does not at all say what you nor the person who posted it claim it says. The part about Wilen hearing the news reads as follows:
Amazing how "difficulty concentrating" and concerned that "Assange was angry with her" transforms into "horrified" that they brought charges. I also noted (to put it another way, it made me sick to read) how the person who posted the article tried to spin the following passage as "consent":
We're practicing our labials.
Debunked in your other thread.
We're practicing our labials.
Dipshit, what about Hatta's post was "informative"?
Answer: nothing.
The only reason he received +5 moderation is because he's spouting the same unfounded conspiracy bullshit the mods also believe. Every single point he made requires you to accept the existence of a conspiracy for which NO EVIDENCE has been offered - only speculation and wild-ass guesswork. If he posted evidence to support his allegations of a conspiracy, his post would be informative. Since it is simply baseless assertion and grandstanding, it is not informative - it is karma whoring of the first order.
Wow... Consider me impressed! Very thorough!
I do, however, find the thesis... Strange. Primarily because I had read a translation of it (translation, as in, why did she submit her thesis to a Swedish university in English?) a while back and it said largely what I claimed. As I have no way to prove this, however, consider the point ceded.
No it does not. It only requires a prosecutor wanting to get famous by prosecuting a celebrity and a few sycophants politicians in the Swedish government ready to sell him out. And after the Swedish government crapped over its laws to abusively sentence piratebay founders at US orders it is no an unreasonable assumption. That is evidence enough for me that the Swedish government and legal procedures are rotten.
You may keep being naive for all eternity if it suits you, but it is unreasonable to think everybody will follow suit.
Weren't they the ones who helped defeat the MAFIAA by wearing Guy Fawkes masks in parliament? We could do with a few more countries like that.
No sig today...
Only the conspiracy nutjobs thinks it was a US plot to execute him.
We'll see what happens tomorrow. Want to bet if you'll be eating those words or not?
No sig today...
If the shoe fits, wear it friend - if you behave like a dumb fuck, expect to be called a dumb fuck. I'm not here to help you feel good about yourself by pretending anything you've said is correct, insightful, or accurate.
But, since you've decided you have no ACTUAL facts or evidence to support any of your arguments, I'm glad to see that you've conceded your error, and I look forward to reading your thoughtful public retraction soon.
If you are holding fast to an opinion with no facts and evidence to support it - or worse, ignoring facts and evidence that don't support your opinion - you are engaging in worship. Yes, worship. For someone as interested in transparency, accountability, and responsibility as Mr. Assange, I'm genuinely surprised that his followers aren't far more interested in learning the facts of the situation and holding him accountable if he did something wrong, as well.
I guess with Mr. Assange, it's just a case of "do as I say, not as I do," huh?
Again, I dont have stats, but how many men go to jail is sweeden every year for doing a woman (or in this case 2 women) bareback.
Sweden has some very weird laws regarding consent. Anything which might cause her to do what the USA calls the "walk of shame" the next day can be rape. Even a particularly clever chat up line which lowered her defenses can theoretically get you charged with rape.
Don't even think of buying a girl a drink if you ever go over there. You could be doing prison time if she wakes up thinking it wasn't worth it.
No sig today...
OK, let's assume for a moment it *is* rape. How many embassies have ever been stormed in order to extradite rapists? Does anything else about this pass her smell test?
If the rest of it is so rotten then why wouldn't the 'rape' thing be invented too? It fits perfectly.
No sig today...
The 4 charges he is wanted for questioning in relation to include at least 2 incidents that would *absolutely* be considered rape and sexual assault in most of the rest of the world.
Maybe so, but the fact remains he's just wanted for questioning. He hasn't been charged with anything (presumably due to lack of evidence).
I can understand rape victims not calling the police.
Organizing a party next day for her friends to meet her rapist? Not so much.
Freedom is suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome".
Casteism
Yes, exactly as I said: it requires you to accept the existence of a conspiracy for which NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OFFERED. Where is the evidence to support even one of the claims or speculation you've made?
EVIDENCE. Not "rumor." Not "speculation." The ONLY way Sweden could "hand him over" to the US is if they disregard all of their commitments under EU law, and piss off the EU, the UK, and no doubt, a good portion of the rest of the world. And why would they do that? How would they benefit? It would require a bunch of Swedish bureaucrats to be *so slavishly devoted* to serving the US that they would do so at the risk of their own careers, and their entire government's good standing in the international community. Also, it would require the US government to, you know, ACTUALLY REQUEST EXTRADITION, and offer up charges on which they intend to try him. Since the ONLY charge they could get him on would be espionage - if and only if they can prove he *solicited* the material from PFC Manning, rather than acted as a passive recipient of the leaked data - it's incredibly unlikely that any extradition request would be made.
Even if there WAS an indictment for espionage, Sweden would need to get the consent of the UK as well, since he is in their custody under the EAW - which gives Assange legal recourse with the Swedish government, the UK Ministry of Justice, and the European high court, and gives the UK veto power over any extradition to the US.
And you ask us to accept all of this "on faith," because the simpler, and more reasonable alternative - that Sweden lives up to its obligations, asks him the questions they want to ask him, then either try him, or return him to the UK, doesn't fit with your political worldview, where the US is a giant ogre just waiting to kill anybody and everything that falls into its clutches.
You are not privy to some higher and more accurate method of knowing things - what you are doing is making up a conspiracy theory that doesn't contradict your biased, subjective world view, because cognitive dissonance makes you uncomfortable. I'm here to tell you that it's quite possible for Assange to be both someone whose work you admire, and at the same time, be a real asshole who really did assault two women in Sweden.
I'm sorry friend, but you live in a fairy tale if you think that every person you look up to is a white knight on a golden stallion.
OOOOOOOOhhhh did you actually type that with your penis?
Actually, you are the one who never provided a link, I did and to a reputable publication.
The Ecuadoran embassy offered the Swedish prosecutors the chance of interviewing him inside of the embassy. They refused the offer. This was in the BBC article.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Simple: Because once again, not all cases are equal.
You're assuming that all cases have equal probability of being overturned, obviously this is outright false as some cases have more merit than others. Once again, as per the stats you provided, of cases that have merit, 55% get overturned. It's almost certainly the case that Assange's case would be one of those heard by the ECHR.
This is statistics 101, we're not talking about rolling a dice where each side has equal probability here.
Don't fool yourself otherwise, even for a minute. Julian Assange believes in government for and of the people, with constraints and accountability. Your cult leader believes in none of that.
1. Remove the artificial barriers to Brazilian ethanol.
2. Increase the taxes on petroleum and coal
3. Decrease the taxes on wind, solar, and next-generation nuclear.
Given that the renewable technologies are already close to reaching grid parity*, the government only has to give them a small extra push.
And we can accelerate the cooling process with geo-engineering:
4. Actively cool Earth**
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
** http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/putting-the-breaks-on-climate-change-with-diamonds/