Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

1…2324262829…40

Comments

  • #752
    Craebear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭Craebear


    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/

    Go on Iceland!


  • #753
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭Einhard


    dooferoaks wrote: »
    Sorry if posted before:

    Michael Moore has offered 20,000 toward bail money for Assange via a note to the court. Link Here

    Furthermore, direct quote: "I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars."

    Great self-publicist but I admire him for continuing to back his convictions with a bit of his hard earned.

    Ah, Michael Moore, the champion of the common man, stumping up bail money for an alleged rapist! Does nobody else see anything wrong with this? What if the charges are proven to be true? What we'll have is a lot of mindless celebrities, and even more mindless keyboard acolytes, having been involved in the further harassment of two already victimised women. Kind of makes me sick the way people who should know better expect Assange to be above the law. As the poster above said, people should seperate Assange from Wikileaks. Give money to the site if you want Moore, not to an alleged rapist.

    Is there any fund for the two women who have allegedly been violated in their own homes? I know that's one I'd like to contribute to. But I'm sure the standard bearers of democracy in Anonymous would quickly attack that site too.


  • #754
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    prinz wrote: »
    People need to separate Assange from Wikileaks.

    They can, they do & even Moore does in the piece you quoted seeing as
    he distinguished between them by offering Assange money for the court
    proceedings while offering his servers for wikileaks. People constantly
    harp on about Assange being different from wikileaks & berate him for
    the publicity but the fact of the matter is that he is in that position as
    the main public figure, the endless refrain from critics is enough to educate
    someone with no knowledge of wikileaks history that Assange is not the
    whole shebang @ this stage ffs, it's just tiresome & always comes from a
    critic as if nobody else knew...

    If wikileaks bothers anyone enjoy the transparent offshoot openleaks by
    all means, as far as I know there is only one public figure representing
    openleaks @ this moment, how long before we hear similar refrains
    about Domscheit?
    dooferoaks wrote: »
    Great self-publicist but...

    I'm not sure if that was meant in a derrogatory fashion but these
    last two comments are something I' really curious about with
    regard to the psychology motivating them. As I said if you didn't mean
    that insultingly then I don't direct this at you but I read things like this
    a lot & it really annoys me. If Moore does something like he's just done
    why should anyone criticize him for self-publicity? The logic of this is that
    anyone who does anything deserves to be equally condemned because
    that itself is self-publicity. Where does it end? Don't say hi it's
    self-publicity! That girl over there, don't chat her up - it's self-publicity!
    What are you, some sort of Assange? :rolleyes:
    Basically because a person is a public figure they deserve criticism for
    self-promotion etc... Bono, Assange, Moore, all these people just get so
    much flack for doing what every human being does, promoting themselves
    using their external surroundings :eek::mad:
    I honestly don't know whether it's a form of jealousy from those
    employing these subtle smear tactics or just a general begrudgement
    for someone famous because they are famous but focusing on someones
    publicity has to be the weakest form of criticism known to man, it
    just does absolutely nothing for anyone other than the person venting
    their own repressed anger & at least to me it's very visible & hints at
    deeper issues. Basically I see no reason or use for that attitude other
    than personal relief & it must originate because of some personal
    anger that needs to be addressed.

    As for wikileaks having one spokesperson, Assange wasn't the only
    person publicly known for wikileaks, Domscheit was equally known,
    should he be berated for doing this publicity stunt of breaking off
    with openleaks? Is he just pulling some conniving publicity stunt
    also? How do we know he isn't just after his own spotlight secretly?

    Just as with Assange, it doesn't matter because it's the most insignificant
    thing as regards leaks in general but that seems to be a high point of
    interest with so many people for some reason.

    Any news on this document proving that Adams was in the IRA? Is it
    all just based on internal conversations or is there actual hard evidence
    showing he was? How about this bank heist argument? The media focusing
    on unsustantiable claims based on internal conversation is hardly proof of
    something like this. Talking about yourself, i.e. Adams own secret
    documents admitting to this would be evidence, another person saying
    X about Adams is as useful as me saying in this thread the moon is
    made of red cheese, not green, and the Irish gov has proof of it, honests!

    I also skimmed by a lot of documents that work in the RCC's favour as
    regards child molestation etc... in Ireland, any news on that stuff?

    How about the justifications Israel used to attack the Palestinians, the
    fallacious claim that Hamas fired rockets during the truce as justification
    to attack when the only evidence that exists anywhere is that Hamas
    did nothing but observe the truce? I mean that's shocking stuff, internal
    lies as justifcation to attack which was publicized as 'defense'.
    That's something we didn't know before wikileaks, contrary to the view of
    a recent poster who said wikileaks has brought about nothing really new.

    What about bankers in 2008 considering the Irish publics fear of the
    banks as nothing but herd mentality"?


  • #755
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Einhard wrote: »

    Is there any fund for the two women who have allegedly been violated in their own homes? I know that's one I'd like to contribute to. But I'm sure the standard bearers of democracy in Anonymous would quickly attack that site too.

    Yet if the charges were to be fake, you would be giving money to liars who almost destroyed someone's life.


  • #756
    Elevator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 844 ✭✭✭Elevator


    Einhard wrote: »
    Ah, Michael Moore, the champion of the common man, stumping up bail money for an alleged rapist! Does nobody else see anything wrong with this? What if the charges are proven to be true? What we'll have is a lot of mindless celebrities, and even more mindless keyboard acolytes, having been involved in the further harassment of two already victimised women. Kind of makes me sick the way people who should know better expect Assange to be above the law. As the poster above said, people should seperate Assange from Wikileaks. Give money to the site if you want Moore, not to an alleged rapist.

    Is there any fund for the two women who have allegedly been violated in their own homes? I know that's one I'd like to contribute to. But I'm sure the standard bearers of democracy in Anonymous would quickly attack that site too.

    but you are the only one outside of America who believes he did it!!

    cop yourself on!! this is simply new world politics at play and nothing else


  • Advertisement
  • #757
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Einhard wrote: »
    Ah, Michael Moore, the champion of the common man, stumping up bail money for an alleged rapist! Does nobody else see anything wrong with this?

    The man is innocent until proven otherwise, and should be treated as such. Thats how the justice system works last I checked.
    Einhard wrote: »
    What if the charges are proven to be true?

    He can move to Switzerland or France, they don't seem to have a problem with Roman Polanski. Joking aside, if proven to be guilty then thing clearly change considerably, but as I said earlier until guilt has been proven, he is a innocent man.
    Einhard wrote: »
    What we'll have is a lot of mindless celebrities, and even more mindless keyboard acolytes, having been involved in the further harassment of two already victimised women. Kind of makes me sick the way people who should know better expect Assange to be above the law. As the poster above said, people should seperate Assange from Wikileaks. Give money to the site if you want Moore, not to an alleged rapist.

    So, if someone makes an allegation, they should be treated as if they were guilty? That seems wrong to me.
    Einhard wrote: »
    Is there any fund for the two women who have allegedly been violated in their own homes? I know that's one I'd like to contribute to. But I'm sure the standard bearers of democracy in Anonymous would quickly attack that site too.

    No one is stopping one from being set up. If Anonymous attacked such a site, the law should go after them.


  • #758
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    They can, they do....

    Sorry, but the majority opinion on this website seems to be that the whole thing is a set-up by "the man"/CIA/men in black just to get at Assange because of the actions of wikileaks..... how is that separating the two? :confused:


  • #759
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    The man is innocent until proven otherwise, and should be treated as such. Thats how the justice system works last I checked..

    The problem is wes, as I am sure you are well aware, a huge amount of people have already decided on Assange's innocence. Perhaps they are the ones who should let the justice system work.... He may be innocent, he may be guilty, but the only people out there crying foul are the ones who claim the whole thing is a charade. There's nobody out there I am aware of attacking websites because they think he could be guilty.


  • #760
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    The problem is wes, as I am sure you are well aware, a huge amount of people have already decided on Assange's innocence. Perhaps they are the ones who should let the justice system work....

    People have every right to state there opinion on whether they think him innocent or guilty. However, until its proven he did what he is being accused of, he should be treated as a innocent man imho.
    prinz wrote: »
    He may be innocent, he may be guilty, but the only people out there crying foul are the ones who claim the whole thing is a charade. There's nobody out there I am aware of attacking websites because they think he could be guilty.

    True enough, but it doesn't change the fact that the man is to be treated as being innocent until proven otherwise.


  • #761
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    People have every right to state there opinion on whether they think him innocent or guilty. However, until its proven he did what he is being accused of, he should be treated as a innocent man imho. True enough, but it doesn't change the fact that the man is to be treated as being innocent until proven otherwise.

    IMO there are far too many people, far too quickly, jumping to a conclusion that there is a conspiracy against him (again based on wikileaks - not Assange himself).

    It makes me uneasy, in relation to this case and in relation to possible future cases involving celebrities... and public figures. I'd just like to see the circus stop and allow the course of justice to continue one way or the other.

    It's not too much to advise people to take a step back and proceed with caution when forming opinions. Funny that you mention Polanski, the same happened with him. People were just 'out to get him' and sure it wasn't "rape rape" at all, and he was a great director...


  • Advertisement
  • #762
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    IMO there are far too many people, far too quickly, jumping to a conclusion that there is a conspiracy against him (again based on wikileaks - not Assange himself).

    Considering the people he has pissed off, I don't think this unresonable.
    prinz wrote: »
    It makes me uneasy, in relation to this case and in relation to possible future cases involving celebrities... and public figures. I'd just like to see the circus stop and allow the course of justice to continue one way or the other.

    Again, to bring in the example of Roman Polanski, who was convicted of statutory rape, and has admitted to it, and he has gotten off scot free. Celebrities being immune from this sort of thing is old hat at this point. Anything that happens with Assange won't change that..
    prinz wrote: »
    It's not too much to advise people to take a step back and proceed with caution when forming opinions. Funny that you mention Polanski, the same happened with him. People were just 'out to get him' and sure it wasn't "rape rape" at all, and he was a great director...

    Except he was found guilty, and admitted to doing it. So its still a very different case. Assange has not be found guilty of anything yet, and there have been some things that do raise genuine questions about his arrest.


  • #763
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Einhard wrote: »
    Ah, Michael Moore, the champion of the common man, stumping up bail money for an alleged rapist! Does nobody else see anything wrong with this? What if the charges are proven to be true? What we'll have is a lot of mindless celebrities, and even more mindless keyboard acolytes, having been involved in the further harassment of two already victimised women. Kind of makes me sick the way people who should know better expect Assange to be above the law.

    Yeah that sounds terrible the way you write it, out of context. If I
    read what you wrote about someone I'd be motivated to find out
    why someone would do something so despicable! But, oh wait...
    There is a context, a deep one. Should we look at the way you've
    misconstrued reality as deceitful? That's up for the reader but I think
    you should know people might see it that way. Now lets re-insert that
    context you like to ignore & see how horrendous it sound.

    Moore, John Pilger, and others are offering up bail for a person who is
    being targeted by major countries because of his job of revealing their
    internal corruption. They are actively planning to get him tried on US
    soil so it's not a conspiracy it's just fact that there are secret meetings
    attempting to get him. Furthermore the case with Assange is a shambles,
    here is some background:
    That doesn’t mean that I think the two women who’ve accused him of
    committing sexual offenses last August are lying. One woman said she had
    consensual sex with Assange, but that the condom broke and he used his
    body weight to hold her down, presumably to complete the act. She
    hosted a party for him the next evening. A few days later, Assange had
    sex with another woman—allegedly while she was asleep—also without
    wearing a condom. Both women reportedly acknowledged that they freely
    chose to engage in sex acts with Assange—but that some of his conduct
    was nonconsensual.
    Wendy Murphy, former sex crimes prosecutor
    http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=98582
    Portly, pin-striped lawyer Mark Stephens says his client, WikiLeaks boss

    Julian Assange, is accused of ‘sex by surprise’ in Sweden.
    ‘Whatever “sex by surprise” is, it’s only an offence in Sweden,’ says
    Stephens.
    The Swedish term is ‘overraskningssex’, which, as one Swede put it,
    means rape – ‘but jokingly, or keeping it light, a word that brings with it
    positive connotations’. Louche Assange must be relieved.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1337118/Wikileaks-boss-Julian-Assanges-lawyer-Mark-Stephens-says-sex-surprise.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    So there is a context & there is no clear view here. People are free to
    follow their beliefs on this matter, out of context what you write sounds
    horrendous & rightly questionable, & I don't doubt you personally see it
    that way, but its just not in line with the external reality surrounding this
    issue. There is justifiable skepticism on all sides & I don't profess
    innocence nor guilt for anyone here but the circumstances, to me & to
    others, do indicate that this is just ridiculous. But go ahead, pledge
    money to the women that have been unjustly condemned, nobody
    should criticise you for that. However if I follow the logic you use then
    I can equally condemn you, coming from the opposite perspective, to
    say you're offering money to women who are lying about all this
    stuff & therefore perverting freedom! It just highlights the fundamental
    contradictions with making your mind up so early in a situation like this.
    Einhard wrote: »
    I know that's one I'd like to contribute to. But I'm sure the standard bearers of democracy in Anonymous would quickly attack that site too.

    This coming from someone who champions Aung San Suu Kyi & democracy,
    Credit card companies that prevented card-holders from donating money
    to the secrets outlet WikiLeaks could have their operating licenses taken
    away in Iceland, according to members of the Icelandic Parliamentary
    General Committee.

    Representatives from Mastercard and Visa were called before the
    committee Sunday to discuss their refusal to process donations to the
    website, reports Reykjavik Grapevine.

    "People wanted to know on what legal grounds the ban was taken, but no
    one could answer it," Robert Marshall, the chairman of the committee, said.
    "They said this decision was taken by foreign sources."
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/mastercard-visa-licenses-revoked-iceland-wikileaks/
    So the people behind "operation payback" who fought against something
    for which no legal basis has been offered yet are nothing to you. To some
    that is the ideal of democracy, to fight against something which is
    unjust. Do we need to continue to emphasize that amazon did not
    do anything for the past few months regarding wikileaks until pressure
    by homeland security was put on them, upon which other companies
    followed suit? The fact of the matter is that most of the world sees what
    happened to wikileaks as unjust & an abuse of power by these companies
    & should the law in Iceland deem the companies @ fault I think it will
    be in accord with the way most people feel is just, if not then yeah
    the internet warriors have messed up big time.


  • #764
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Einhard wrote: »
    Ah, Michael Moore, the champion of the common man, stumping up bail money for an alleged rapist! Does nobody else see anything wrong with this? What if the charges are proven to be true? What we'll have is a lot of mindless celebrities, and even more mindless keyboard acolytes, having been involved in the further harassment of two already victimised women. Kind of makes me sick the way people who should know better expect Assange to be above the law. As the poster above said, people should seperate Assange from Wikileaks. Give money to the site if you want Moore, not to an alleged rapist.

    Is there any fund for the two women who have allegedly been violated in their own homes? I know that's one I'd like to contribute to. But I'm sure the standard bearers of democracy in Anonymous would quickly attack that site too.

    Very careful in your use of the qualifier 'allegedly' there, commendable.

    Then you go on to decry donating money to an alleged rapist, but say you wish you could donate money to the people alleging? You can't have it both ways Einhard.

    Either both Assange and his accusers should be denied these donations because.................well you didn't give a valid reason....... because you believe people should be considered guilty until proven innocent I suppose, or they should both be entitled to them.

    Do you really believe you hold no bias on the topic of Wikileaks? You clearly do. The above is just one example of your contradictory approach to the topic but the thread is completely littered with them.


  • #765
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    wes wrote: »
    Again, to bring in the example of Roman Polanski, who was convicted of statutory rape, and has admitted to it, and he has gotten off scot free. Celebrities being immune from this sort of thing is old hat at this point. Anything that happens with Assange won't change that...

    People being racist is old hat, should we give in to that? Murder is old hat, do we let people away with that? Just because it has happened in the past, and shamefully so, is no reason for people to actively seek to have it happen again.

    If there are genuine questions about his arrest then let him return to Sweden and expose them... but there a lot of people arguing that he shouldn't go to Sweden at all.


  • #766
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    prinz wrote: »
    It's not too much to advise people to take a step back and proceed with caution when forming opinions. Funny that you mention Polanski, the same happened with him. People were just 'out to get him' and sure it wasn't "rape rape" at all, and he was a great director...

    As far as I know Polanski basically drugged a 13 year old girl at a party,
    had sex with her & fled countries for over 20 years & avoided all those
    that would try to prosecute him. That's hardly "the same thing" :rolleyes:

    Also, Assange turned himself in, told the UK authorities he would be in
    the UK before even going there, communicated with them all the time &
    most certainly did not run, let alone practically rape a 14 yo...

    As for your conspiracy comment, read my last post or anything here.


  • #767
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    As far as I know Polanski basically drugged a 13 year old girl at a party, had sex with her & fled countries for over 20 years & avoided all those that would try to prosecute him. That's hardly "the same thing" :rolleyes:
    Also, Assange turned himself in, told the UK authorities he would be in
    the UK before even going there, communicated with them all the time &
    most certainly did not run, let alone practically rape a 14 yo....

    So why the reluctance to allow the Swedes to proceed? If Assange has nothing to worry about...? Why have people jumped all over this and accused the women of being tied up with the CIA, and part of some global conspiracy? As for Polanksi, it seems you have taken up the point incorrectly, I was not comparing the actions of Polanski and Assange, but the actions of others around them who will flock to their defence on the basis of things irrelevant to the actual alleged offences...in Assange's case wikileaks, in Polanski's his movies. Neither Assange's dealings with wikileaks or Polanski's abilities as a director should have any bearing on their guilt or innocence in their respective cases.
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    As for your conspiracy comment, read my last post or anything here.

    Ah yes his UK lawyer. Nothing to be gained from spinning the conspiracy angle there then.


  • #768
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    prinz wrote: »
    People being racist is old hat, should we give in to that? Murder is old hat, do we let people away with that? Just because it has happened in the past, and shamefully so, is no reason for people to actively seek to have it happen again.

    Of course it shouldn't be ignored or excuses, but my point was that if Assange is guilty and gets away with it because he is a celebrity, than its nothing new, and doesn't set any kind of precedent as its been happening for years, and yes that sort of thing should be stopped, and that is assuming the man is guilty.
    prinz wrote: »
    If there are genuine questions about his arrest then let him return to Sweden and expose them... but there a lot of people arguing that he shouldn't go to Sweden at all.

    People are saying that as they see the case as politically motivated and that he won't get a fair trial.


  • #769
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    prinz wrote: »
    So why the reluctance to allow the Swedes to proceed? If Assange has nothing to worry about...? Why have people jumped all over this and accused the women of being tied up with the CIA, and part of some global conspiracy? As for Polanksi, it seems you have taken up the point incorrectly, I was not comparing the actions of Polanski and Assange, but the actions of others around them who will flock to their defence on the basis of things irrelevant to the actual alleged offences...in Assange's case wikileaks, in Polanski's his movies.



    Ah yes his UK lawyer. Nothing to be gained from spinning the conspiracy angle there then.

    The reluctance to allow the Swedes to proceed isn't very difficult, if
    you did 5 minutes of research you'd find that Assange's lawyers are
    calling for Assange to stay on British soil to get a fairer hearing as they
    see that as the best hope. Seeing as you are the one giving out about
    external speculation I think it'd be wise to find out what the internal
    speculation is regarding this matter before condemning everyone.
    People don't just call for specific legal actions to be taken for no
    reason, I mean the crowds of people are hardly highly trained lawyers...

    I know what you meant regarding Polanski but you obviously don't see
    what I mean. As with doing research on why the people are calling for
    Assange to remain in Britain a little research into the back stories
    behind Polanksi & Assange reveals that the back story is very
    different, with Polanski there is absolutely no justification for
    his situation & you'll find that it's a minority that believes he should of been
    let free. Still that has no bearing on Assange's case in any shape of
    form. Honesly I think you just equated the two because of that celebrity
    bias I spoke about in my first post, there is absolutely no logical
    connection other than that. People called for Pol Pot to be free & say,
    as he did, that he didn't know about the extent of the mayhem in
    Cambodia, I mean why didn't you mention that or some other questionable
    situation? Just because people argue that there is some justification
    doesn't mean there is any substance to it. The point is that anything can
    be argued for but it doesn't mean it has any relevance whatsoever &
    Polanski's supporters calling for his freedom does not somehow incriminate
    people calling for Assange's freedom, I think it's just classic malaise
    celebre & an attempt at subconscious guilt by a fictional situation
    association (both situations had a people calling for freedom of the
    person in question & in one situation the person was obviously guilty so
    that means both are)...
    prinz wrote: »
    Ah yes his UK lawyer. Nothing to be gained from spinning the conspiracy angle there then.

    Honestly it's extremely easy to find a bias in your posts :D
    It's not the first time I've done this to you is it ;)*coughGreececough*
    5 minutes of research would have convinced you that there was more
    than just an attorney's word on the matter,
    A federal grand jury in Virginia is meeting to decide whether to bring spying
    charges against Julian Assange, an attorney for the imprisoned WikiLeaks
    founder said over the weekend.
    “We have heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly
    empaneled grand jury in Alexandria (Virginia),” attorney Mark Stephens
    told Al-Jazeera over the weekend, according to CNN. “They are currently
    investigating this.”
    So Swedish authorities are the ones who informed him of this ;)
    Yes I see the political gain in him lying about Swedish authorities
    claiming this. In fact I see the logic in a lawyer making a statement
    that could cost him his entire reputation by lying about Swedish
    intelligence. Honestly had you bothered to check out the evidence
    before voicing an opinion you could have seen I wasn't making **** up
    & could have avoided giving us irrefutable evidence of your bias.
    It was obvious in that I gave a persons quote that could have been
    just made up - & remember I was the one criticizing people for
    accusing Gerry Adams of IRA involvement based on trivial conversation
    as opposed to actual evidence. It was a big flashing light to see would you
    use it against me or check it out,
    All I have to do is leave out easily findable claims & let you make a
    brilliant statement, I mean it's basically entrapment :p I even gave you a
    link to find it yourself!!!
    Notice it's always the public, or lawyers or whoever is on wikileaks side
    that is at fault :pac:


  • #770
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    The reluctance to allow the Swedes to proceed isn't very difficult, if you did 5 minutes of research you'd find that Assange's lawyers are calling for Assange to stay on British soil to get a fairer hearing as they see that as the best hope.

    ..and why should he be exempted from the same legal process as everyone else? If I commit a crime in France why should I be allowed stay on Irish soil? etc.

    There is an Irishman currently in Ireland fighting against being returned to Hungary to face up to his crimes and what goes for Assange goes for him too. You commit the crime, you answer for it to the relevant authorities. I've said it before in relation to that man, and I'll say the very same thing in relation to Assange.

    No one is handing him over to be stoned to death...
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Honestly it's extremely easy to find a bias in your posts :D.

    There is no bias in my posts, but I see the conspiracy theory starting to spread... :rolleyes:
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    So Swedish authorities are the ones who informed him of this ;)
    Yes I see the political gain in him lying about Swedish authorities
    claiming this. In fact I see the logic in a lawyer making a statement
    that could cost him his entire reputation by lying about Swedish
    intelligence.

    So, the Swedes, apparently central to this worldwide conspiracy, tipped his legal team off about it :confused:
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Notice it's always the public, or lawyers or whoever is on wikileaks side
    that is at fault :pac:

    In so far as they argue that justice should not be applied then yes it is. You can be on Assange's (again NOT wikileaks) side and still feel it only right that he be returned to Sweden to face the charges. Assange should be just as answerable (innocent or guilty as he may be) to the charges as any other Joe Soap would be.


  • #771
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    WikiLeaks reveal Irish Government decided Vatican involvement unnecessary in child abuse inquiry


    By Deacon Nick, on December 11th, 2010
    One important and revealing fact contained in the leaked Us diplomatic

    cable that has not been reported by The Guardian is the Irish Government’s conclusion that the Vatican’s involvement in the Murphy commission inquiry into child sex abuse was not necessary.
    ‘In the end, the Irish government decided not to press the Vatican to reply, according to Fahey’s [Irish Ambassador to Vatican] Deputy, Helena Keleher. Moreover, Keleher told Polchief the CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] probably did not have much to add to the inquiry.’
    Protect the Pope comment: This important admission in a US diplomatic cable challenges the poisonous myth made up by Tatchell in the dying days of the Protest the Pope anti-catholic campaign, and unquestioningly disseminated by the media, that the Vatican must open up its thousands of secret files on paedophile priests.
    Here we have in the US cable the truth of the matter, which is that local bishops and dioceses have primary responsibility for handling allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy and not the Vatican. The CDF’s recently acquired role is to make sure that the allegations are handled promptly and correctly by the local bishop.
    http://protectthepope.com/?p=2156
    Considering the name of the website :p I'm inclined to believe this is
    biased in some crazy way, anyone know anything about this?


  • Advertisement
  • #772
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Considering the name of the website :p I'm inclined to believe this is
    biased in some crazy way, anyone know anything about this?

    The Vatican and the Irish Govt played a staring match, diplomatically. To their shame the Govt looked away first it seems. However nothing new other than the fact that the Vatican said it didn't have anything to add, which it seems is true. It was the responsibility of the dioceses to deal with abuse cases, and in many instances abuses cases were never reported to the Vatican. Old news that, instead of going to the top and having priests defrocked etc Irish bishops instead kept the problems 'in house' and just moved priests from parish to parish and diocese to diocese.


  • #773
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    prinz wrote: »
    ..and why should he be exempted from the same legal process as everyone else? If I commit a crime in France why should I be allowed stay on Irish soil? etc. There is an Irishman currently in Ireland fighting against being returned to Hungary to face up to his crimes and what goes for Assange goes for him too. You commit the crime, you answer for it to the relevant authorities. I've said it before in relation to that man, and I'll say the very same thing in relation to Assange.

    Great question! Why should he be exempted from the same legal process
    as everyone else? Yet he was & even though his case was originally
    done with it was reopened & subjected to what we see now. But
    here we have you making more ridiculous comparisons, comparing him
    to an already guilty man :confused: Objectivity out the window... :pac:
    prinz wrote: »
    So, the Swedes, apparently central to this worldwide conspiracy, tipped his legal team off about it :confused:

    Yes apparently Swedish intelligence did tip him off as he claimed on cnn.
    Notice that sit's not just the people in this thread claiming there is a
    conspiracy it's the Swedish intelligence claiming this as well, in fact
    nearly everyone except you & the US spokespeople are the only ones
    claiming there's nothing going on :pac: Notice I am emphasizing this
    because you are the one giving out about people claiming there is some
    conspiracy as if it's just some trivial nonsense. I'd agree with you if only
    there weren't so many reasons not to...
    prinz wrote: »
    In so far as they argue that justice should not be applied then yes it is. You can be on Assange's (again NOT wikileaks) side and still feel it only right that he be returned to Sweden to face the charges. Assange should be just as answerable (innocent or guilty as he may be) to the charges as any other Joe Soap would be.

    That's great, I think we all know that & haven't read anybody arguing that
    he should. The problem is that he isn't guilty of anything as of yet & was
    originally cleared of the charges so that explains why people are
    justifiably skeptical of the current situation which is all I'm arguing for.
    Dismissing them using all this guilt by association rhetoric & near
    outright accusations of guilt (see above in red) is just ridiculous. Some
    of us see through it & I'm frankly tired of reading nonsense in my inbox...


  • #774
    Lollers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 502 ✭✭✭Lollers


    Hes been granted bail.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/14/wikileaks-julian-assange-court-appeal-live-updates


  • #775
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Great question! Why should he be exempted from the same legal process
    as everyone else? Yet he was & even though his case was originally
    done with it was reopened & subjected to what we see now. ...

    They are entitled to reopen his case. This happens all the time in this country too. The DPP decides not to prosecute, the victim appeals and the someone else from the DPP reviews the case and gives a second opinion on whether the case should be prosecuted or not. Simple as that. The same applies in Ireland as what happened in Sweden, it happens here on a weekly if not daily basis. It occurs in Assange's case and suddenly it's a sign of a conspiratorial witch-hunt.
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    But here we have you making more ridiculous comparisons, comparing him
    to an already guilty man :confused: Objectivity out the window... :pac:...

    My objectivity is just fine thanks.
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Yes apparently Swedish intelligence did tip him off as he claimed on cnn.
    Notice that sit's not just the people in this thread claiming there is a
    conspiracy it's the Swedish intelligence claiming this as well, in fact
    nearly everyone except you & the US spokespeople are the only ones
    claiming there's nothing going on :pac: Notice I am emphasizing this
    because you are the one giving out about people claiming there is some
    conspiracy as if it's just some trivial nonsense. I'd agree with you if only
    there weren't so many reasons not to......

    So Swedish intelligence tipped him off that the Swedish authorities are involved in a conspiracy against him? What bearing does an alleged jury in Virginia have to do with the accusations in Sweden by the way?
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    That's great, I think we all know that & haven't read anybody arguing that
    he should. The problem is that he isn't guilty of anything as of yet & was
    originally cleared of the charges so that explains why people are
    justifiably skeptical of the current situation which is all I'm arguing for.
    Dismissing them using all this guilt by association rhetoric & near
    outright accusations of guilt (see above in red) is just ridiculous. Some
    of us see through it & I'm frankly tired of reading nonsense in my inbox...

    I am going to guess you don't see the irony in this. Dismissing the Swedish authorities and accusations made against him through claims of a conspiracy is also ridiculous. He was never cleared of the charges, the original prosecutor decided there wasn't enough of a basis to proceed with the case. This happens in Ireland all the time.


  • #776
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    You are the one who has been arguing there is no conspiracy going on
    here while condemning protestors for Assange & I'm just showing you that
    the people who are protesting for Assange had every right to do so seeing
    there is so much controversey regarding this case. There are claims by
    Swedish authorities of the US trying to get him tried even though US
    spokespeople deny these allegations.
    The people who you were insulting had every right to be skeptical of the
    whole situation seeing as all this stuff is up in the air, also regarding the
    case at hand this is very unusual as plenty of lawyers & rape sufferer
    organizations have all claimed, i.e. justifiably skeptical. The only one
    arguing with certainty are the critics who constantly imply guilt, either
    because of Annonymous' actions even though Icelandic courts also view
    the actions of these companies as having n legal basis, or because of
    Swedish mismanagement in their own affairs, or because of the people
    who protest against what they, justifiably, see as nothing more than a
    sham. Yes because it's Assange do people think it's just a witch-hunt,
    I mean isn't that the very reason why everyone is in this mess? :confused:
    Notice there are, wait for it, reasons why people think these things.
    I've mentioned them in all my posts & if you don't see them now you
    wont ever see them.


  • #777
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    .................
    There is no bias in my posts, but I see the conspiracy theory starting to spread... :rolleyes:


    .

    Bias? C'est Non!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Prinz wrote:
    I hate Wikileaks. There I said it. No time for them, their spokespeople or their deeds. The effects of the latest 'leaks' will be felt much further around the world than just the US too.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69296783&postcount=3


  • #778
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    There are claims by
    Swedish authorities of the US trying to get him tried even though US
    spokespeople deny these allegations...

    Even if they were this would be irrelevant to the case in Sweden.
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    ...because of Swedish mismanagement in their own affairs, or because of the people who protest against what they, justifiably, see as nothing more than a sham..

    They haven't 'mismanaged' anything. Although interesting to note what has been described as some sort of machiavellian scheme now being described as simply mismanagement.
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Yes because it's Assange do people think it's just a witch-hunt. I mean isn't that the very reason why everyone is in this mess? :confused:.

    On what basis other than the actions of Wikileaks? Isn't it sort of dangerous to go down the route of ascribing everything to a witch-hunt? What next.... if he gets a speeding ticket is it a witch-hunt? They are basically attempting to raise him above the law, and I am not happy with that.
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Notice there are, wait for it, reasons why people think these things.
    I've mentioned them in all my posts & if you don't see them now you
    wont ever see them.

    Yes, if you add 2 and 2 and come to 5. Personally I'd like a judge to sort it out rather than relying on soundbites and spin.


  • #779
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    Bias? C'est Non!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69296783&postcount=3

    Yeah I wondered when you'd show up. Do I need to point out again that that thread was about wikileaks, and not Assange? If he's found innocent he can return to his wikileaking, no issues with that. I still won't have time for what they do. That's called separating the two. You should try it sometime. It's much like how I can respect and admire Joe Higgins as a man and a politician, but don't have much time for his own brand of politics.


  • #780
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    Yeah I wondered when you'd show up. Do I need to point out again that that thread was about wikileaks, and not Assange? ......

    'No time for them, their spokespeople or their deeds' seems to cover each and all, as far as I can see. You're of course free to think what you want of who, but claiming no bias is a bit much.


  • Advertisement
  • #781
    Elevator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 844 ✭✭✭Elevator


    Lollers wrote: »
    Hes been granted bail.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/14/wikileaks-julian-assange-court-appeal-live-updates

    great news

    and a big fcuk you America and all the other fraudulent governments twisted by your shenanigans!!


Advertisement
Advertisement