Assange and his safety net.

Brown Bomber

Does anyone remember when Wikileaks first start making headlines that had in their possesionsome files/data that they that were supposed to be far more damaging than anything else they had released? This info was supposedly kept as security should anything happen to Assange.

I assume now that that was bull****? Or am I missing something?

Torakx

Soon as i heard of wiki leaks i thought it might be C.I.A lead or one of those agencies.
Its just too good to be true.
Id trust wiki leaks as much as i trust Alex Jones.
Which means im very open to hearing anything,but its all taken with a pinch of salt at the end of the day.

Friend told me the other day that the group anonymous did cyber atack on the mafia and had to pull ut after a few members had death threats or something along those lines.

Now i know the mafia may as well be C.I.A or connected there in some ways, i think the information wiki leaks is threathening with should instigate a much faster and cleaner retaliation from governments and Bilderberg-esq group around the world.
Nobodies that good,that they can hide online while giving away this information.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

Friend told me the other day that the group anonymous did cyber atack on the mafia and had to pull ut after a few members had death threats or something along those lines.

I think it would be quite difficult to launch a cyber attack against 'the mafia' - if you think about it, it's not really one organisation, it's really hundreds of small gangs whose leaders agree how to divide up territory. I don't think the would need (or would risk) sharing some sort of IT platform. Can you imagine what you'd get if you launched a cyber attack on Tony Soprano and his crew? Not much - he probably wouldn't even notice...

humanji

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does anyone remember when Wikileaks first start making headlines that had in their possesionsome files/data that they that were supposed to be far more damaging than anything else they had released? This info was supposedly kept as security should anything happen to Assange.

I assume now that that was bull****? Or am I missing something?

I forgot all about that. I remember that one of the co-founders had a blow up with Assange, was fired and took a load of files because he didn't trust them with Assange. He said that he later destroyed them. No idea if those are the files that they were talking about.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think it would be quite difficult to launch a cyber attack against 'the mafia' - if you think about it, it's not really one organisation, it's really hundreds of small gangs whose leaders agree how to divide up territory. I don't think the would need (or would risk) sharing some sort of IT platform.

Torakx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think it would be quite difficult to launch a cyber attack against 'the mafia' - if you think about it, it's not really one organisation, it's really hundreds of small gangs whose leaders agree how to divide up territory. I don't think the would need (or would risk) sharing some sort of IT platform. Can you imagine what you'd get if you launched a cyber attack on Tony Soprano and his crew? Not much - he probably wouldn't even notice...

Ok had a quick google and it was a mafia, just not the sopranos lol

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/31/anonymous-takes-on-mexican-drug-cartel/

Funnily enough Assange got a mention here.

Also i think your redition or idea of "the mafia" seems more based on fiction that what it might actually be or how it might actually be organised.
For all we know the leaders could be police chiefs.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

Ok had a quick google and it was a mafia, just not the sopranos lol

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/31/anonymous-takes-on-mexican-drug-cartel/

Funnily enough Assange got a mention here.

That would make a lot more sense, as those Mexican drug cartels are indeed huge organisations. I wonder though if it was a true story, why Anonymous didn't ultimately out all of the people named anyway to strike a blow against what really is a bunch of murderous scumbags?

Torakx

Honestly i just skimmed through that link i posted.
I didnt see much in way of answer to that question.
y friend just told me yesterday about it and my memory is'nt great on this.
Either he said they did kidnap and kill a member or threathened to.
And also if the info was released for every person outed in that mafia there would be 10 anonymous members killed.

So either anonymous are also a made up org to replace and control any known hackers of worth or they chickened out at the end.
OR.. its still on going.

Basically the system and information is so well controlled now, that any org that makes headway (in a direction i would consider helpfull to "the cause") is supsect because of said headway.
From terrorist groups,hackers to politicians like Ron Paul.
All suspect because of the cause they appear to take up, imo anyway.
But thats me ...... considering the information we are getting in physics regarding a possible holographic universe my own hands are suspect

My motto the last few years has always been "never say never".Im like a broken record.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

And also if the info was released for every person outed in that mafia there would be 10 anonymous members killed.

Interesting - I wonder how the Zetas would find out who was in Anonymous?

Anyway, we may be going a bit O/T here, apologies.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

I forgot all about that. I remember that one of the co-founders had a blow up with Assange, was fired and took a load of files because he didn't trust them with Assange. He said that he later destroyed them. No idea if those are the files that they were talking about.

you mean daniel dom-berg?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Domscheit-Berg

he was never a founder and the data was not the 'insurance' data they mentioned, he had the no fly list as well as other american specific information.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/22/wikileaks_data_lost/

studiorat

Interesting take on it in the Independent today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gorgeous-george-joins-the-assange-backers-who-dont-think-rape-is-rape-8063513.html

davoxx

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-galloway-defends-julian-assange-rape-comments-8069748.html

just some comments and a bit more context ...

(one has to wonder why one story full of misinformation has no comments and an obviously inflammatory headline, while the other one has a more factual story with comments ... strange and totally not propaganda )

i know this whole rape claim has gotten the people crying though they don't understand the context.
it is similar to bubbles the cops claiming assault when a protester blew bubbles at him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMTm3QRwEc versus real assault.

the women involved seemed happy afterwards and only raised a complaint under dubious circumstances. but it is easy no to throw around "claims of rape" while they only want to question him, but they need him in sweeden to do so ...

humanji

davoxx wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-galloway-defends-julian-assange-rape-comments-8069748.html

just some comments and a bit more context ...

(one has to wonder why one story full of misinformation has no comments and an obviously inflammatory headline, while the other one has a more factual story with comments ... strange and totally not propaganda )

i know this whole rape claim has gotten the people crying though they don't understand the context.
it is similar to bubbles the cops claiming assault when a protester blew bubbles at him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMTm3QRwEc versus real assault.

the women involved seemed happy afterwards and only raised a complaint under dubious circumstances. but it is easy no to throw around "claims of rape" while they only want to question him, but they need him in sweeden to do so ...

There's several things to understand:

1) He's actually guilty of rape and admits it. But his legal team wants the definition to be redefined for him so that consent doesn't have to be given before sex begins, only after. This is insanity.

2) The opinion of the women no longer matters as a crime had been committed, and so they have no real say in whether or not it gets investigated.

3) In the Swedish system, the "questioning" they want him for is actually to arrest him. It's a strange technical term they use, but it's not like questioning here. As I understand it form various court documents that have been floating about, if he goes back to Sweden he'll be arrested immediately, then questioned more and a case would be properly decided then. But they don't want to have a friendly chat with him. This is the reason he fled in the first place.

4) George Galloway is a idiot. "Bad sexual etiquette” makes him sound just as bad as Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" nonsense. The man should be ignored as he's only going to damage Assange's credibility.

5) I honestly don't buy that Assange is only a victim here. Obviously, the US want him, but why do they need him to be back in Swedish custody to extradite him? Why didn't they extradite him from the UK? Because if they try from Sweden, European law says that both Sweden and the UK have to agree, so the US could have just saved themselves a lot of bother. And why not extradite him when he first was in Sweden? Or why not let him go to Ecuador and bribe a few officials, or extraordinary render him? None of this makes sense to me.

SIR PEADO BAILOUT

humanji wrote: »

There's several things to understand:

1) He's actually guilty of rape and admits it. But his legal team wants the definition to be redefined for him so that consent doesn't have to be given before sex begins, only after. This is insanity.

2) The opinion of the women no longer matters as a crime had been committed, and so they have no real say in whether or not it gets investigated.

3) In the Swedish system, the "questioning" they want him for is actually to arrest him. It's a strange technical term they use, but it's not like questioning here. As I understand it form various court documents that have been floating about, if he goes back to Sweden he'll be arrested immediately, then questioned more and a case would be properly decided then. But they don't want to have a friendly chat with him. This is the reason he fled in the first place.

4) George Galloway is a idiot. "Bad sexual etiquette” makes him sound just as bad as Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" nonsense. The man should be ignored as he's only going to damage Assange's credibility.

5) I honestly don't buy that Assange is only a victim here. Obviously, the US want him, but why do they need him to be back in Swedish custody to extradite him? Why didn't they extradite him from the UK? Because if they try from Sweden, European law says that both Sweden and the UK have to agree, so the US could have just saved themselves a lot of bother. And why not extradite him when he first was in Sweden? Or why not let him go to Ecuador and bribe a few officials, or extraordinary render him? None of this makes sense to me.

Hmmm...... I`m thinking yer man was always a schill, now I`m thinking he double crossed thought about it and now hes a triple cross,so hes still a tout just up da creek and never mind the paddle board he hasnt even got a canoe.HTH

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

1) He's actually guilty of rape and admits it. But his legal team wants the definition to be redefined for him so that consent doesn't have to be given before sex begins, only after. This is insanity.

he admitting rape? source please, i've never heard him admit rape.
i think the legal team were pointing out that not wearing a condom or breaking a condom does not constitute a rape.

humanji wrote: »

2) The opinion of the women no longer matters as a crime had been committed, and so they have no real say in whether or not it gets investigated.

the opinion of the women, who are the witnesses do not matter? if they say they have not been raped would the charges not normally get dropped?

humanji wrote: »

3) In the Swedish system, the "questioning" they want him for is actually to arrest him. It's a strange technical term they use, but it's not like questioning here. As I understand it form various court documents that have been floating about, if he goes back to Sweden he'll be arrested immediately, then questioned more and a case would be properly decided then. But they don't want to have a friendly chat with him. This is the reason he fled in the first place.

it's not exactly true, he asked if they need to question him further or if he was under arrest, he was told no and he could leave the country. he did not flee.
and we are well aware that they do not want a friendly chat, they want to ship him off to usa.

humanji wrote: »

4) George Galloway is a idiot. "Bad sexual etiquette” makes him sound just as bad as Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" nonsense. The man should be ignored as he's only going to damage Assange's credibility.

well unfortunately there are plenty of false rape claims, and even being drunk of your ass and saying yes can still count as a rape. he phrased it badly and the media jumped all over it.

humanji wrote: »

5) I honestly don't buy that Assange is only a victim here. Obviously, the US want him, but why do they need him to be back in Swedish custody to extradite him? Why didn't they extradite him from the UK? Because if they try from Sweden, European law says that both Sweden and the UK have to agree, so the US could have just saved themselves a lot of bother. And why not extradite him when he first was in Sweden? Or why not let him go to Ecuador and bribe a few officials, or extraordinary render him? None of this makes sense to me.

that is the point of the ct, why all this messing around? will the plane explode when he lands in sweden? can the usa not trust their normal paid for officials in ecuador? there are many variables here, and maybe it is because sweden has form for this or maybe it's because the uk would need a guarantee that he won't be tortured or executed .. but yes it still remains uncertain as to why they want to send him back to sweden.

Torakx

humanji wrote: »

There's several things to understand:

1) He's actually guilty of rape and admits it. But his legal team wants the definition to be redefined for him so that consent doesn't have to be given before sex begins, only after. This is insanity.

2) The opinion of the women no longer matters as a crime had been committed, and so they have no real say in whether or not it gets investigated.

3) In the Swedish system, the "questioning" they want him for is actually to arrest him. It's a strange technical term they use, but it's not like questioning here. As I understand it form various court documents that have been floating about, if he goes back to Sweden he'll be arrested immediately, then questioned more and a case would be properly decided then. But they don't want to have a friendly chat with him. This is the reason he fled in the first place.

4) George Galloway is a idiot. "Bad sexual etiquette” makes him sound just as bad as Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" nonsense. The man should be ignored as he's only going to damage Assange's credibility.

5) I honestly don't buy that Assange is only a victim here. Obviously, the US want him, but why do they need him to be back in Swedish custody to extradite him? Why didn't they extradite him from the UK? Because if they try from Sweden, European law says that both Sweden and the UK have to agree, so the US could have just saved themselves a lot of bother. And why not extradite him when he first was in Sweden? Or why not let him go to Ecuador and bribe a few officials, or extraordinary render him? None of this makes sense to me.

Unless he is a CIA confidant?

syklops

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does anyone remember when Wikileaks first start making headlines that had in their possesionsome files/data that they that were supposed to be far more damaging than anything else they had released? This info was supposedly kept as security should anything happen to Assange.

I assume now that that was bull****? Or am I missing something?

Your missing the bit where by nothing has happened to Assange.

humanji

davoxx wrote: »

he admitting rape? source please, i've never heard him admit rape.
i think the legal team were pointing out that not wearing a condom or breaking a condom does not constitute a rape.

http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concedes/

He (Assange's Lawyer) described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

He admits that it was rape, but claims that it shouldn't count because she later consented. But it's still rape under Swedish law.

davoxx wrote: »

the opinion of the women, who are the witnesses do not matter? if they say they have not been raped would the charges not normally get dropped?

But one of them did say she was raped (the other wasn't raped, the charge was sexual assault, I think). She hasn't said it didn't happen. She later said she consented. But the law is more rigid than that. If I stabbed you, you told the police I did it, but later changed your story after I threatened your family, should the law proceed against me if they still have a case?

davoxx wrote: »

it's not exactly true, he asked if they need to question him further or if he was under arrest, he was told no and he could leave the country. he did not flee.
and we are well aware that they do not want a friendly chat, they want to ship him off to usa.

Proof? Because, as I said, why not extradite him when he was in Sweden? Why not from the UK? Why not render him from Ecuador? Why do the US have to make it so incredibly difficult for themselves, when they could have made it incredibly easy for themselves? It makes no sense.

What does make sense is that Assange is using his fame as an excuse to hide from a crime he committed.

well unfortunately there are plenty of false rape claims, and even being drunk of your ass and saying yes can still count as a rape. he phrased it badly and the media jumped all over it.

But rightfully, though. He had no place to make such a stupid claim and he really should have thought it through. What little I know of Galloway makes it seem to me that he just wanted to be in the limelight and doesn't actually case about the case at all.

humanji

Torakx wrote: »

Unless he is a CIA confidant?

Or diversion to take our attention away from something else.

Brown Bomber

syklops wrote: »

Your missing the bit where by nothing has happened to Assange.

And you are missing the bit that should he step a foot outside the door of the embassy he will be apprehended and shipped to Sweden and from there who knows.

davoxx

rape explained -ish

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19333439

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

he admitting rape? source please, i've never heard him admit rape.
i think the legal team were pointing out that not wearing a condom or breaking a condom does not constitute a rape.

http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concedes/

i'm not sure where in that assange admits rape. can you quote the part where assange admits rape?

humanji wrote: »

He (Assange's Lawyer) described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

He admits that it was rape, but claims that it shouldn't count because she later consented. But it's still rape under Swedish law.

where does he, the lawyer, admit it was rape?

Even assuming that Emmerson is not vouching for the accuracy of these accounts but merely offering them as summaries of the charges against his client, his introductory statement, excerpted above, is striking in its tone and approach:

humanji wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

the opinion of the women, who are the witnesses do not matter? if they say they have not been raped would the charges not normally get dropped?

But one of them did say she was raped (the other wasn't raped, the charge was sexual assault, I think). She hasn't said it didn't happen. She later said she consented. But the law is more rigid than that. If I stabbed you, you told the police I did it, but later changed your story after I threatened your family, should the law proceed against me if they still have a case?

you said that their opinion did not matter, i merely pointed out that it does.
and regarding the law, i think you'll find many a crook has escaped prosecution based on threats, but that is neither here nor there.

humanji wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

it's not exactly true, he asked if they need to question him further or if he was under arrest, he was told no and he could leave the country. he did not flee.
and we are well aware that they do not want a friendly chat, they want to ship him off to usa.

Proof? Because, as I said, why not extradite him when he was in Sweden? Why not from the UK? Why not render him from Ecuador? Why do the US have to make it so incredibly difficult for themselves, when they could have made it incredibly easy for themselves? It makes no sense.

proof that the us want him? that is in public domain.
why not extradite him from uk, i'm not sure.
is this a pretence, yes.

humanji wrote: »

What does make sense is that Assange is using his fame as an excuse to hide from a crime he committed.

innocent until proven guilty.
and no i doubt he is hidding from teh supposed crime.
he claims he is fearful for his life, and given other american enemies being shot dead without a trial, he has a very valid point.

humanji wrote: »

well unfortunately there are plenty of false rape claims, and even being drunk of your ass and saying yes can still count as a rape. he phrased it badly and the media jumped all over it.

But rightfully, though. He had no place to make such a stupid claim and he really should have thought it through. What little I know of Galloway makes it seem to me that he just wanted to be in the limelight and doesn't actually case about the case at all.

it was not a stupid claim, it was badly phrased and then jumped upon by uneducated people.
from what i follow of galloway, he is trying to do the right thing, though he acts rather than thinking.

Torakx

A bit off topic, but am i correct in reading that spousal rape is not really a concern to the law?
I think i misinterpreted it, as that doesnt sound correct.

Spousal rape

Outlawed in 1965


Exemption abolished after R v R case appealed to House of Lords in 1991.


Exemption abolished by Scottish courts in 1988 - law eroded during series of cases in the early 1980s.


North Carolina last state to outlaw it in 1993.


Outlawed in 1997

Outlawed means its against the law or the law on it is not in use anymore?

If its the former im suprised it was ever in contention!

humanji

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure where in that assange admits rape. can you quote the part where assange admits rape?


where does he, the lawyer, admit it was rape?

You should probably read that link:

He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes

This is called rape pretty much everywhere in the world.
His argument (continued from the above quote):

before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

He is claiming that even though it was rape, it shouldn't count because she later woke up and didn't stop him. And the second case is:

In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”

As in the case of the first incident, Emmerson argues that subsequent consent renders the entire encounter consensual, and legal.

Again, his argument is that they later consented, but when initiated, it was rape, plain and simple.

you said that their opinion did not matter, i merely pointed out that it does.
and regarding the law, i think you'll find many a crook has escaped prosecution based on threats, but that is neither here nor there.

Their opinions on whether to proceed or not with a rape charge mean nothing because the case was sent forward for prosecution. They can be witnesses for or against Assange, but they don't get to decide if the case should be stopped or not. It's gotten beyond them being able to not report it.

proof that the us want him? that is in public domain.
why not extradite him from uk, i'm not sure.
is this a pretence, yes.

No, proof that Sweden wants to ship him off to the US. Because so far, there's nothing but conjecture.

innocent until proven guilty.
and no i doubt he is hidding from teh supposed crime.
he claims he is fearful for his life, and given other american enemies being shot dead without a trial, he has a very valid point.

As I've pointed out, he's admitted to the act, but wants the definition of the crime changed. He's guilty by his own account.

it was not a stupid claim, it was badly phrased and then jumped upon by uneducated people.
from what i follow of galloway, he is trying to do the right thing, though he acts rather than thinking.

Of course it's a stupid claim. He's implying forcing yourself on someone is nothing more than misunderstanding of etiquette. That's utter nonsense.

humanji

Torakx wrote: »

A bit off topic, but am i correct in reading that spousal rape is not really a concern to the law?
I think i misinterpreted it, as that doesnt sound correct.



Outlawed means its against the law or the law on it is not in use anymore?

If its the former im suprised it was ever in contention!

I'm not 100% but I think in general it was considered that once you were married, the man could pretty much have sex whenever he wanted and the woman had no say in it. And so it was only recently (as indicated by the dates) that it was made illegal. So, for example, in Sweden it was legal until they made a law against it in 1965.

davoxx

humanji wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure where in that assange admits rape. can you quote the part where assange admits rape?
where does he, the lawyer, admit it was rape?

You should probably read that link:

you should probably read the question.

humanji wrote: »

He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes

This is called rape pretty much everywhere in the world.

apparently it is not called rape everywhere in the world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/22/ecuador-president-assange-sweden-sex)
but back to the point, assange did not admit rape, nor did his lawyer. you are incorrectly inferring that it is rape. that is up to a court to decide.

humanji wrote: »

His argument (continued from the above quote):

before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

He is claiming that even though it was rape, it shouldn't count because she later woke up and didn't stop him.

no, he is claiming that "subsequent consent renders the entire encounter consensual" not that it undoes a rape.

it is a good report by a law student on the case, but here is another view on it http://www.anorak.co.uk/330686/news/julian-assange-english-law-would-prosecute-a-sleep-rapist.html/

humanji wrote: »

And the second case is:

In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”

you did read the word 'alleged'?

humanji wrote: »

As in the case of the first incident, Emmerson argues that subsequent consent renders the entire encounter consensual, and legal.

yes, but not that he raped her.
his argument is that subsequent consent reaffirms that there was consent.

humanji wrote: »

Again, his argument is that they later consented, but when initiated, it was rape, plain and simple.

it's not as simple as you portray it, otherwise he would have been arrested immediately rather than being let go.

humanji wrote: »

you said that their opinion did not matter, i merely pointed out that it does.
and regarding the law, i think you'll find many a crook has escaped prosecution based on threats, but that is neither here nor there.

Their opinions on whether to proceed or not with a rape charge mean nothing because the case was sent forward for prosecution. They can be witnesses for or against Assange, but they don't get to decide if the case should be stopped or not. It's gotten beyond them being able to not report it.

actually it does, i don't know why you think that if the witnesses says it was not rape that their opinion does not matter.
i think you've nailed this ct on the head, that for some reason no one is listening to the victims, as they flip flop.
but the case was sent forward with the females claiming it was rape.

humanji wrote: »

proof that the us want him? that is in public domain.
why not extradite him from uk, i'm not sure.
is this a pretence, yes.

No, proof that Sweden wants to ship him off to the US. Because so far, there's nothing but conjecture.

you're looking for proof that sweden want to ship him to usa in a ct forum?
what proof do you want? that the head of sweden said that he wanted to ship him to usa?
and it's not conjecture, it's an assumption based the way this story unfolded. there is plenty of evidence to support that there is an ulterior motive for wanting assange back in sweden, that motive is not clear. but if it were, this would not be the ct forum.

humanji wrote: »

innocent until proven guilty.
and no i doubt he is hidding from teh supposed crime.
he claims he is fearful for his life, and given other american enemies being shot dead without a trial, he has a very valid point.

As I've pointed out, he's admitted to the act, but wants the definition of the crime changed. He's guilty by his own account.

as i've corrected, he has not. you might interpret this as rape, but firstly and most importantly the courts have not, so innocent until proven guilty.

humanji wrote: »

it was not a stupid claim, it was badly phrased and then jumped upon by uneducated people.
from what i follow of galloway, he is trying to do the right thing, though he acts rather than thinking.

Of course it's a stupid claim. He's implying forcing yourself on someone is nothing more than misunderstanding of etiquette. That's utter nonsense.

stupidity is subjective.
and he is not implying anything of the sort, you are inferring that he is.

what have you done with the real humanji?

humanji

Right, we can argue if it's rape or not all day. I know what I know and you know what you know, so we're not going to change each others mind. So rather than go down the usual CT forum route of hurling abuse at each other, I think it's better if we agree to disagree on this and maybe leave it that there is debate over the validity of the consent? Also, if we go down this route, we're dragging the thread further off topic.

So, to skip down to this part:

you're looking for proof that sweden want to ship him to usa in a ct forum?
what proof do you want? that the head of sweden said that he wanted to ship him to usa? and it's not conjecture, it's an assumption based the way this story unfolded. there is plenty of evidence to support that there is an ulterior motive for wanting assange back in sweden, that motive is not clear. but if it were, this would not be the ct forum.

I was replying to your statement: "and we are well aware that they do not want a friendly chat, they want to ship him off to usa." But there's no evidence at all that they want to do that. So to say that's what they want is just conjecture.

To bring this back to the OP, if Assange claimed to have even more important information in his possession (and nobody would have any reason to doubt he did), why would the US risk everything with such a horrifically contrived means to extradite him? It seems it would actually be in the US interest to make sure nothing happens to Assange. All he would have to do is send a message to the US embassy in Sweden to make sure the government drops the charges. Character assassination was never going to work in this case as Assange could be caught redhanded eating a baby and it wouldn't undo what Wikileaks has revealed.

The best thing for them to do would be to kill him off in an "accident" and that would be the end of it. People would claim for years that it was murder, but they'd be dismissed as cranks. And the world would move on.As you said yourself:

he claims he is fearful for his life, and given other american enemies being shot dead without a trial, he has a very valid point.

Of course there's the possibility that whatever information Assange had was lost and it was at that point that a plan was enacted, but there's nothing to suggest that. In this day and age it'd be odd for there to be no backups and it'd be great publicity for Assange to claim the US had stolen data from him.

what have you done with the real humanji?

I'm still here, pointing out what I see as flaws in a very strange case.

SIR PEADO BAILOUT

humanji wrote: »

http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concedes/


He admits that it was rape, but claims that it shouldn't count because she later consented. But it's still rape under Swedish law.



But one of them did say she was raped (the other wasn't raped, the charge was sexual assault, I think). She hasn't said it didn't happen. She later said she consented. But the law is more rigid than that. If I stabbed you, you told the police I did it, but later changed your story after I threatened your family, should the law proceed against me if they still have a case?



Proof? Because, as I said, why not extradite him when he was in Sweden? Why not from the UK? Why not render him from Ecuador? Why do the US have to make it so incredibly difficult for themselves, when they could have made it incredibly easy for themselves? It makes no sense.

What does make sense is that Assange is using his fame as an excuse to hide from a crime he committed.



But rightfully, though. He had no place to make such a stupid claim and he really should have thought it through. What little I know of Galloway makes it seem to me that he just wanted to be in the limelight and doesn't actually case about the case at all.

So the Wikidicky fella admits starting to fcuk some woman and she`s sleeping,that`s the story, send that fecker back to Sweden,no banana boat to paradiso for the likes of him I say.

davoxx

did anyone read this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-extradition-live-coverage

humanji wrote: »

Right, we can argue if it's rape or not all day. I know what I know and you know what you know, so we're not going to change each others mind. So rather than go down the usual CT forum route of hurling abuse at each other, I think it's better if we agree to disagree on this and maybe leave it that there is debate over the validity of the consent? Also, if we go down this route, we're dragging the thread further off topic.

and i have to disagree humanji, until a court rules that it is rape, it is not rape. it might look like rape, but it might have been role playing. to assume one or the other at this stage is pure speculation.

to put it one way, do you ask your significant other each time you kiss? if not then it is sexual assault by your interpreting of the facts.

but to say that assange admitted to rape is misinformation.

edit: this is what happens when people half read something and jump upon it.

SIR PEADO BAILOUT wrote: »

So the Wikidicky fella admits starting to fcuk some woman and she`s sleeping,that`s the story, send that fecker back to Sweden,no banana boat to paradiso for the likes of him I say.

humanji wrote: »

I was replying to your statement: "and we are well aware that they do not want a friendly chat, they want to ship him off to usa." But there's no evidence at all that they want to do that. So to say that's what they want is just conjecture.

there is evidence. sweden will not provide any assurances that assange will not be handed over to usa. neither will the uk. i'd say that is more than just conjecture.

humanji wrote: »

To bring this back to the OP, if Assange claimed to have even more important information in his possession (and nobody would have any reason to doubt he did), why would the US risk everything with such a horrifically contrived means to extradite him? It seems it would actually be in the US interest to make sure nothing happens to Assange. All he would have to do is send a message to the US embassy in Sweden to make sure the government drops the charges. Character assassination was never going to work in this case as Assange could be caught redhanded eating a baby and it wouldn't undo what Wikileaks has revealed.

well branding him a rapist already has people thinking he is a rapist, which will allow the future ct deniers to say "that came from wikileaks, the site that rapes women!"
to others that actually look at the facts, and if he was shown eating a baby, they would call him a sick b@stard, but the information released by wikileaks would still be valid information.

humanji wrote: »

The best thing for them to do would be to kill him off in an "accident" and that would be the end of it. People would claim for years that it was murder, but they'd be dismissed as cranks. And the world would move on.As you said yourself:

too many accidents recently and he has a lot of fans following him.

did you know that they tried to storm the embassy at midnight? but they were thwarted by his follower! (though it is open to interpretation as to whether they were actually foiled)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/fairfaxs-bungled-raid/story-e6frg996-1226452419496
i think assange can be quoted as saying that the police were climbing fire escapes preparing for a breach when the retreated.

humanji wrote: »

Of course there's the possibility that whatever information Assange had was lost and it was at that point that a plan was enacted, but there's nothing to suggest that. In this day and age it'd be odd for there to be no backups and it'd be great publicity for Assange to claim the US had stolen data from him.

there is a torrent of encrypted data floating around if you know where to look for it.
this is different to the hidden data of uncensored data (us cables) i believe. i have not downloaded either.

humanji wrote: »

I'm still here, pointing out what I see as flaws in a very strange case.

yay!!
and i'm back baby (till i have to go undercover again)

humanji

davoxx wrote: »

there is evidence. sweden will not provide any assurances that assange will not be handed over to usa. neither will the uk. i'd say that is more than just conjecture.

But how can they give assurances for something that they don't know they can assure? Until a time when the US tries to extradite Assange, no country can say they won't extradite him, not even Ecuador. You can safely say that given a good enough incentive, they'd happily hand him over. So Sweden simply cannot say what they simply don't know.

well branding him a rapist already has people thinking he is a rapist, which will allow the future ct deniers to say "that came from wikileaks, the site that rapes women!"
to others that actually look at the facts, and if he was shown eating a baby, they would call him a sick b@stard, but the information released by wikileaks would still be valid information.

The US nuked two cities and got away with it. People look at current news, then forget about it a few minutes later. All Wikileaks has to do is make another big release and people will be focused on that.

too many accidents recently and he has a lot of fans following him.

Would that really bother the US? They haven't been bothered by the claims that they're behind pretty much every terrorist act, or that the two women involved were hired by them, or by the majority of the planet not wanting them to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

A show trial for Assange in the states wouldn't do them any favours. It would just make a martyr out of him. If he died in an "accident" then they could happily move on.

did you know that they tried to storm the embassy at midnight? but they were thwarted by his follower! (though it is open to interpretation as to whether they were actually foiled)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/fairfaxs-bungled-raid/story-e6frg996-1226452419496
i think assange can be quoted as saying that the police were climbing fire escapes preparing for a breach when the retreated.

I've heard that said, but I kind of doubt it. The police can legally enter the building and access many parts of it. There's only a few sections that are off limits as they are embassies. A man on bail fled into the building, so they would only be doing their jobs by actually following him as far as they could. It would be insanity to raid the embassy when all they have to do is revoke it's status. That would be a lot less hassle.

there is a torrent of encrypted data floating around if you know where to look for it.
this is different to the hidden data of uncensored data (us cables) i believe. i have not downloaded either.

But I'd wager that there's something bigger being held back. Something huge. If, for the sake of argument, all the present scenario is a ruse to silence Wikileaks and destroy Assange's credibility, there's got to be something that really makes it worth while. Because, when you look at the bigger picture, Wikileaks has been little more than an inconvenience to the major nations. Anything it's revealed has been relatively forgotten about by the average person. It will have disrupted many operations that were in progress, but there'll always be others. Any diplomatic relations than have been frayed will be rebuilt.

All it really did was prove what many people already knew, that you can't trust the governments, and the governments can't trust each other.

It just seems like unless there's something major to be gained, then they're all just making a mountain out of a molehill. Because, at the moment, what do anyone of the current players gain from all this?

Whether they get Assange or not, the US will look like the bad guys, and imprisoning Assange won't stop the leaks.

The UK don't gain anything out of this, that I can see. The argument can be made that they're appeasing the Us, but if they wanted to do that, they could have just extradited Assange over there in the first place. They still have to go through the same process if he's later extradited from Sweden, anyway.

Sweden don't seem to gain anything from appeasing the US.

And Ecuador aren't doing themselves any favours by trying to act like the big man, standing up to the UK.

So if there was something more to play for, this ace that Assange claimed to have up his sleeve, then the conspiracy makes more sense. In my mind, anyway.

Torakx

Or maybe he has dirt on England Sweden and the States and they are fighting over who gets him ^^
But im still going with CIA type lacky for now.
I cant see any of the major world players letting a site like his exist in the first place, if he was a threat as he sounds like, he would have been taken out ages ago.

Brown Bomber

humanji wrote: »

No, proof that Sweden wants to ship him off to the US. Because so far, there's nothing but conjecture.

Apparently, (and it should be pointed out that this is from Stratfor via Wikileaks) there is a sealed indictment against Assange in the US.

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/375123_fw-ct-assange-manning-link-not-key-to-wikileaks-case-.html

And Sweden has generally been subservient to US-NATO illegal demands, extraordinary rendition, Gladio etc.