Are you asking me for evidence that an alleged crime did NOT happen 4-5 years ago in another city from where I live? Let me go check my magic cabinet… :dubious:
Because… when it was reported, that was one of the things being reported…? That there was no violence, force or threat involved.
Oh, you’re one of those Trump people who like shitting on women for the way they look? Gotcha. :dubious:
Yeah, he did something that you think was heroic, so he gets a free pass to abuse women. I’m sure you wouldn’t dismiss all allegations of nonconsentual sex, just those against someone you like. And going for the ‘well, the crime isn’t technically classed as rape but as a type of sexual assault’ for the defense pretty much speaks for itself.
Well I am sure that makes sense for the little character you have invented in your mind to represent me, unfortunately I am a bit more complex than that. For example my brain does not limit me to only two options where one is “ALL GOOD!!” and the other is “ALL BAD!!”.
I don’t see the fascination with making up stories about what other people believe. This is an internet message board, so you can actually FIND OUT, meaning you don’t have to make things up. But if you’d rather have the conversation with a made up person in your own head, I won’t stop you. Hope you two have fun.
All the UN have done here is devalue their influence when they want to apply pressure for the release of somebody who actually has been arbitrarily detained.
Asssage gets a free pass from them which has been and will continue to be laughed at by the two governments directly involved lplus the next guy who really needs there help gets one avenue for that comprehensively devalued. Great job guys.
Sometimes common sense is common. He is avoiding legal process and effectively detaining himself. End of.
As for his comments on the matter - that the “ruling” is somehow “binding” is also a joke. Julian just makes it up as he goes along. I support him overall on the wikileaks thing but, as others have pointed out, that doesn’t give him the right to avoid due process when it comes to allegations of sex crimes.
So then let the prosecutors and defense lawyers handle it and get to the bottom of the case.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
Sounds like force and thread to me.
Yes and you defend rapists because he can stick a thumb in Uncle Sam’s eye.
This is a goddamned joke. He’s wanted for a crime, and he’s hiding in a place the authorities have no jurisdiction. Nobody is detaining him. He is free to leave any time he pleases. The fact that he would be arrested and deported is his own problem.
By that logic, I could stab my wife, flee to Mexico, and then complain to the UN that I’m not “allowed” to return to the US because the police would persecute me.
I’m not sure quite how deluded you are, but just to make it clear, I do not have the power to neither release or prosecute mr Assange. What I am doing is sharing my perspective on a message board, and engaging in pointless back and firths with you (again, and against my better judgement).
Going by that statement I would say the chance of that leading to a rape conviction is fairly minimal. ”She allowed him to undress her”, they had a discussion about condoms etc.
You don’t seem able to separate those two things.
But really, this ”conversation” is going nowhere, catch you on the flip side.
I have a hard time seeing residence in the Ecuadorian embassy as the equivalent of imprisonment. And I think Assange’s actions support this view: he’s chosen to live in the embassy in order to avoid going to prison.
That may be the case, but frankly I think he is more afraid of being taken by the CIA than going to a Swedish court. Obviously going to court, especially for a sex crime, is always going to be a Bad Experience ™, but I suspect the prospect of being whisked away by the CIA is a lot worse. At least that’s how I would evaluate it from his perspective.
So the question is then if it’s reasonable for him to fear some sort of government action like that. And frankly it is, because Sweden already has a track record of handing over people to the CIA with no questions asked, resulting in torture and death in at least one case.
Option 1: Going to court and maybe getting convicted, and if so possibly spending time in a Swedish prison (assuming it’s considered rape and not something less serious)
Option 2: Being kidnapped by the CIA and transported to an undisclosed location for “enhanced interrogation” or persecuted for espionage in the US.
It’s “Option 2” I would be worried about if I was him.
I don’t we are obliged to protect him for ‘worry’ by facilitating him fleeing to Ecuador by turning a blind eye to a valid European arrest warrant.
Let him argue the case against his extradition to Sweden in an English court. But his worries, even if legitimate, don’t allow him to avoid due legal process - either against a rape charge or requested extradition to be considered by the appropriate forum.
He did. It went all the way to the UK Supreme Court. They ruled that the EAW was valid (and that the actions alleged would be rape if tried in the UK). It was on this final ruling, during which he had been under house arrest because his friends posted a fortune in bail, that Assange jumped bail and fled to the embassy.
He has had a full and fair hearing, with full access to the due process of the law. The only reason he has spent so long indoors is because he chose to evade the legal process.
Your personal jabs do nothing to promote serious discussion.
Take it to The BBQ Pit or knock it off, completely.
[ /Moderating ]
I think the allegations of rape are probably fabricated. Which means Governments have colluded to arrest him. In those circumstances I wouldn’t want to let them get me either.
Swedish prosecutors want to “question” him. But he hasn’t been formally charged, yet he faces extradition, even though the law has changed in the meantime meaning UK is not bound to extradite. It’s a big mess.
In any case, why can’t the Swedish “questioning” be done via email, or in a neutral territory where no one gets arrested?
Why should suspects get to dictate how authorities get to interview them?
ETA: besides, why on earth would anyone need to fabricate charges like this? If the paranoids are right that the US wants to get its hands on him, let’s just remember that the CIA kidnapped a terrorism suspect in Italy (resulting in Italy indicting several American operatives), and US Special Forces nabbed a terrorist off the street of Libya.
The idea that a sexual assault victim has to be fabricated in order for the US to get its hands on bad people is contrary to experience.
Previous articles have indicated that under Swedish criminal procedure, the prosecutors are required to have an interview with a potential accused, before they are able to charge him with anything. This is not the way it works in common law jurisdictions, but I can see that this requirement for an interview is considered an important procedural protection for a suspect under Swedish law.
So, by refusing to be interviewed, he is apparently preventing a charge from being laid.
Again, in a recent news article, I read that the Swedish government was trying to work out an arrangement with the Ecuadorian embassy to allow them to interview Assange there, but that proposal fell through. If that had occurred, Assange could have been interviewed without stepping foot outside the Ecuadorian embassy.
I didn’t say they should. In any case, authorities don’t get to dictate how they interview suspects - the law (as decided by the government of the people in each jurisdiction) is very clear about what is permissible and what is not.
Maybe they just want to fuck with him. And why not? It’s a good example.
A cite for this would be nice.
Actually, don’t bother. The question of Assange’s extradition was appealed by his legal team all the way to the UK Supreme Court, who found that his extradition to Sweden would be lawful. It’s at that point that Assange jumped bail and decided to hide in a room in the Ecuadorean Embassy.
And fleeing a jurisdiction to avoid the legal process is illegal everywhere.
So you agree Assange is full of nonsense when he claims he’s at risk of being sent to Guantanamo?
Technically, everyone is at risk of being sent to Guantanamo. For some people, it’s just a very very small risk. 
And yes, I agree Assange is full of nonsense.
One assumes if this was all some elaborate ruse to throw him into Guantanamo, there’s absolutely nothing stopping MI5 from just bashing down the gates of the embassy and tossing him into an unmarked van. What’s Ecuador going to do - declare war?