Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

orourkeda · 07-12-2010 11:53AM

prinz wrote: »

Frame job my arse. Everything has been done openly and above board. If they wanted him silenced it's a pretty piss-poor attempt. He's a bollix that has been hiding behind the wikileaks name and I'll be delighted to see him taken back to Sweden to face justice. Prat.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

thebigbiffo · 07-12-2010 11:54AM

stitch up, no doubt

prinz · 07-12-2010 11:56AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

What do you mean he's a bollix? What has he done specifically that would warrant such an immature response from you? What, he sets up a website that leaks documents showing governmental criminality and that makes him a bollix?
Wow! Such profundity.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is he a prat?

Picking up awards for 'integrity', complaining about human rights etc on the one hand......... fleeing from a police investigation on the other. Does not compute. What about the rights of his accusers to have the case fully invesitagated? Banging on about justice.... but refuses to allow justice be completed?

He has hidden behind wikileaks claiming that the whole thing is a conspiracy against him. If it is go to court and fight it. What's the point in highlighting government criminality if you cannot face up to your own?

Setun · 07-12-2010 11:57AM

According to the guardian he was planning on handing himself in for questioning.

If a "mysterious accident" does happen there will much more diplomatic troubles, and many more Assange's will crop up over night.

prinz · 07-12-2010 11:58AM

orourkeda wrote: »

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

When you skip the country it usually doesn't look good. If he is innocent he can go back to Sweden and clear his name. By the way I never commented either way on his guilt or innocence wrt to the charges. Did I say he was guilty? Nope.

07-12-2010 11:59AM

Daddio wrote: »

According to the guardian he was planning on handing himself in for questioning.

If a "mysterious accident" does happen there will much more diplomatic troubles, and many more Assange's will crop up over night.

Indeed, if I wanted to get rid of someone annoying, it would be far more effective to discredit them than make them a martyr.

laugh · 07-12-2010 11:59AM

Lol prinz, how hard would it be for the American or another government have him accused of sexual assault? Easy in the extreme.

How easy it would be to have one/two girls do something consensual with him and then press charges?

Sam Vimes · 07-12-2010 12:00PM

prinz wrote: »

Picking up awards for 'integrity', complaining about human rights etc on the one hand......... fleeing from a police investigation on the other. Does not compute. What about the rights of his accusers to have the case fully invesitagated? Banging on about justice.... but refuses to allow justice be completed?

He has hidden behind wikileaks claiming that the whole thing is a conspiracy against him. If it is go to court and fight it. What's the point in highlighting government criminality if you cannot face up to your own?

Would you be jumping at the chance to submit yourself to the people who are trying to frame you for rape? To go to court to fight evidence as airtight as it is fraudulent?

msg11 · 07-12-2010 12:01PM

The time of this is all too close too so many big realises on his site wikileaks. If it is a stitch up , do they really think the site is going to stop ? Cause it won't from what I have read on the net the guy has a team of people behind him.

I can see it now, this lad is going to somehow end up in the USA.

prinz · 07-12-2010 12:01PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Would you be jumping at the chance to submit yourself to the people who are trying to frame you for rape? To go to court to fight airtight but nonetheless fraudulent evidence?

So now his had been proven innocent has he? How do you know he's being framed? Has that been established? People will talk about people being 'innocent until proven guilty' but at the same time have already made their minds up, ironic.

karma_ · 07-12-2010 12:03PM

prinz wrote: »

When you skip the country it usually doesn't look good. If he is innocent he can go back to Sweden and clear his name. By the way I never commented either way on his guilt or innocence wrt to the charges. Did I say he was guilty? Nope.

In fairness you did not, you just resorted to a personal attack on him. Well done, you can sleep easy tonight.

FlutterinBantam · 07-12-2010 12:03PM

This geezer is a scab on society,piggybacking on an internet site with scant regard for world safety.

How would you like to have your every utterance in confidence revealed to the www.

No you wouldn't. This idiot is a dangerous crank who does not understand the implications of his actions in the diplomatic world.

needs a good shoe up the hole and invited to shut the fcuk up.

prinz · 07-12-2010 12:05PM

karma_ wrote: »

In fairness you did not, you just resorted to a personal attack on him. Well done, you can sleep easy tonight.

Thanks I will. Far too many people are letting the website and their activities influence their opinion on the course of justice with regards to the man personally. Sad really. Good to know I can set up a similar website and become exempt from the laws applicable to everyone else.

karma_ · 07-12-2010 12:05PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

This geezer is a scab on society,piggybacking on an internet site with scant regard for world safety.

How would you like to have your every utterance in confidence revealed to the www.

No you wouldn't. This idiot is a dangerous crank who does not understand the implications of his actions in the diplomatic world.

needs a good shoe up the hole and invited to shut the fcuk up.

LOL typical highbrow response from Mr. Establishment.

seamus · 07-12-2010 12:06PM

prinz wrote: »

fleeing from a police investigation on the other. Does not compute. What about the rights of his accusers to have the case fully invesitagated? Banging on about justice.... but refuses to allow justice be completed?

It might be worth reading into it a little more. The case was investigated, and the prosecutor dropped it because she reckoned there was nothing at all to it. He was later questioned and then it was reopened because a different prosecutor reckoned there was a case to answer, with an arrest warrant subsequently issued for him.

At that stage, he was already in London, and he suspected that there were ulterior forces at play so arranged various methods of speaking to Swedish authorities without risk of arrest, but he was denied.

Whatever you think about his activities in regards to wikileaks, I don't think he was being immoral or unreasonable to be suspicious when the case was reopened and reasonable offers of communication were denied.

karma_ · 07-12-2010 12:06PM

prinz wrote: »

Thanks I will. Far too many people are letting the website and their activities influence their opinion on the course of justice with regards to the man personally. Sad really. Good to know I can set up a similar website and become exempt from the laws applicable to everyone else.

Go and do it then, and stop whinging after someone else does it, typical reactionary tripe.

prinz · 07-12-2010 12:08PM

seamus wrote: »

It might be worth reading into it a little more. The case was investigated, and the prosecutor dropped it because she reckoned there was nothing at all to it. He was later questioned and then it was reopened because a different prosecutor reckoned there was a case to answer, with an arrest warrant subsequently issued for him.

More evidence came to the attention of the prosecutor's office. It happens. The timeline of what happened is public knowledge.

orourkeda · 07-12-2010 12:08PM

prinz wrote: »

When you skip the country it usually doesn't look good. If he is innocent he can go back to Sweden and clear his name. By the way I never commented either way on his guilt or innocence wrt to the charges. Did I say he was guilty? Nope.

When you say "frame job my arse" what exactly do you mean?

Sam Vimes · 07-12-2010 12:08PM

prinz wrote: »

So now his had been proven innocent has he? How do you know he's being framed? Has that been established?

So now he has been proven guilty has he? You said "What's the point in highlighting government criminality if you cannot face up to your own?" What criminality would that be? All I've seen are allegations that are very likely to be false.

If you assume that he's guilty as you appear to be doing then he is a hypocrite as you are suggesting but if you do what you're supposed to do in a civilised society and presume innocence then his actions make perfect sense. I can safely say that if I was being framed for rape by very powerful people I wouldn't be all that keen to try to defend myself against their fraudulent allegations.

Son Of A Vidic · 07-12-2010 12:11PM

Self publicising gobsh1te! He's no hero or martyr, he's just a pr1ck! What interest does it serve releasing a list of vital strategic interest around the globe? What's he playing at? A sh1t stirrer of the highest caliber.

prinz · 07-12-2010 12:12PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So now he has been proven guilty has he?

Eh no, which is exactly why he is requested to return to Sweden. Is the penny dropping now?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You said "What's the point in highlighting government criminality if you cannot face up to your own?" What criminality would that be? All I've seen are allegations that are very likely to be false.

Why are they "very likely to be false".... on what basis do you make that claim other than the activities of the wikileaks site?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you assume that he's guilty as you appear to be doing then he is a hypocrite as you are suggesting but if you do what you're supposed to do in a civilised society and presume innocence then his actions make perfect sense..

Where have I presumed guilt? His actions make no sense whatsoever. Fleeing the jurisdiction before a case can be properly proceeded with is not a valid way of establishing innocence.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can safely say that if I was being framed for rape by very powerful people I wouldn't be all that keen to try to defend myself against their fraudulent allegations.

Massive assumption there, and that sums it all up. OJ was probably framed too. Can you not see the irony in talking about innocence until proven guilty and at the same time claiming the whole thing is a huge fraud? Where has that been proven? Perhaps the ladies in question and the Swedish authorities should also be deemed innocent until proven guilty...... or does that not apply unless you have a leak website? Allow the course of justice to go through fully and we'd know for certain one way or the other.

orourkeda · 07-12-2010 12:14PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

This geezer is a scab on society,piggybacking on an internet site with scant regard for world safety.

How would you like to have your every utterance in confidence revealed to the www.

No you wouldn't. This idiot is a dangerous crank who does not understand the implications of his actions in the diplomatic world.

needs a good shoe up the hole and invited to shut the fcuk up.

On one hand there seems to be something that's not quite right about this whole wikileaks operation. I can't quite put my finger on what it is yet.

On the other hand, why should he be invited to shut the f*ck up as you suggest? Isn't this the problem with the world?

Jaafa · 07-12-2010 12:15PM

They got him. :mad:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/12/2010127103159940201.html

orourkeda · 07-12-2010 12:17PM

prinz wrote: »

Where have I presumed guilt? His actions make no sense whatsoever. Fleeing the jurisdiction before a case can be properly proceeded with is not a valid way of establishing innocence.

Neither is it a firm basis for assuming guilt. Surely whether his "fleeing" as you call it doent have to make sense.

Assumptions as to ones guilt should be based on the evidence provided should the prosecution proceed. Plainly and simply.

Sam Vimes · 07-12-2010 12:18PM

prinz wrote: »

Why are they "very likely to be false".... on what basis do you make that claim other than the activities of the wikileaks site?

I make that claim on the basis of what seamus said, that it doesn't make sense that someone with two rapes in his past would make an enemy as powerful as an American government by running a website that champions revealing all information

prinz wrote: »

Where have I presumed guilt?

"What's the point in highlighting government criminality if you cannot face up to your own"
and
"frame job my arse"
and
"I'll be delighted to see him taken back to Sweden to face justice"

All of these statements presume guilt

prinz wrote: »

His actions make no sense whatsoever. Fleeing the jurisdiction before a case can be properly proceeded with is not a valid way of establishing innocence.

you're missing the point here. There is a difference between trying to clear your name when a mistake has been made and trying to clear it when a very powerful organisation is doing everything in its power to make sure you don't. When you are being framed the case against you will not be "properly proceeded".

07-12-2010 12:19PM

Why do people have to multiquote like that? You're quoting the one thing, surely you can do it as one block. It just comes across as extremely pompous otherwise.

happyfriday · 07-12-2010 12:20PM

Finding this whole thing highly suspicious. As much as I hate to say it, this really has conspiracy written all over it. As said above better to discredit him than have him assassinated and make him a martyr.

smk89 · 07-12-2010 12:20PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

This geezer is a scab on society,piggybacking on an internet site with scant regard for world safety.

How would you like to have your every utterance in confidence revealed to the www.

No you wouldn't. This idiot is a dangerous crank who does not understand the implications of his actions in the diplomatic world.

needs a good shoe up the hole and invited to shut the fcuk up.

Well enjoy the boot on your face for eternity!

Sam Vimes · 07-12-2010 12:21PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do people have to multiquote like that? You're quoting the one thing, surely you can do it as one block. It just comes across as extremely pompous otherwise.

I was quoting three sentences that required three different responses......

seamus · 07-12-2010 12:22PM

prinz wrote: »

Eh no, which is exactly why he is requested to return to Sweden. Is the penny dropping now?

I can see both sides of this tbh. If you knew you hadn't done anything wrong, you should be reasonably confident about going back to face the charges (though sexual charges by their very nature can often swing either way).

On the other hand, if you had good reason to suspect that there was an agenda behind the charges, then you would be very cautious about facing them because the evidence can easily be falsified, especially when you get up to governmental/CIA-scale agendas. Regardless of how innocent I knew I was, I would not be confident of acquittal.

The truth unfortunately will not always out, justice is not always served.

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments