Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

When did I describe it as a Machivellian scheme? I said people are
justifiably making that case seeing as there is so much ridiculous
stuff going on here. Furthermore:

prinz wrote: »

Even if they were this would be irrelevant to the case in Sweden.

Is not necessarily true. There is a widespread belief that the US has
something to do with this. Furthermore the fact that we have incidents
like Swedish authorities investigating the validity of secret US meetings
about Assange it further fuels the belief of many people that this is just
a sham. Notice, amazingly, that this is what I'm arguing about :eek:

Also, I'm not arguing in certainties here, I'm just defending the reasons
why people were protesting out there & why people have a justifiable
right to be skeptical abut all this.

prinz wrote: »

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.

Wow... This is grand delusion of a kind I've neer seen. A speeding
ticket? If Assange wasn't releasing the corruption of powerful governments
all over the world, didn't have claims of secret meetings in the US trying
to get him, people constantly writing him & his family death threats,
have public figures calling for his execution etc... et... you might have a
point but you don't & honestly I think this blithy disregard for reality all
stems from that hatred you have of them, whether it originates from the
standard celebrity bias or because they preach openness & transparency
I can't decipher.

Also, I like the attempt at saving grace If only you hadn't included
that "spokesperson" in your condemnation you'd have a slightly conceivable
argument to hide behind

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I wouldn't actually give money to the alleged victims; I was using it to make a rhetorical point about how ridiculous it is for people to stump up money for someone who may turn out to be guilty, and to contrast the concern for Assange with the vitriol being directed at his alleged victims.

Elevator wrote: »

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

I don't believe he's guilty. I believe he's innocent until proven guilty, and there's a heavy burden of proof on the prosecution's part. However, unlike you, I don't think anyone should be above the law. Unlike you, I happen to consider allegations of rape to be serious, and think whoever is accused of such should be investigated. Unlike you, I'm not willing to condemn potential victims of rape as liars and harlots without hearing the facts of the case. Unlike you, I think that the Swedish judicial process, which as far as I know, has never been proved to be particularly corrupt, should be allowed to run its course. Cop yourself on indeed...

wes wrote: »

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

I agree completely. But equally, indeed to an even greater extent, the alleged victims of the attack should not be labelled as liars and Jezabels before the allegations have been disproved, or at least aired in open court!

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.

Again, I agree. I'm not advocating that he be incarcerated forthwith, but that he face the charges, and respond to queries as you or I would be expected to do. Why should Assange be above such things?

I realise that there's a chance that the charges are politically motivated, but it sends a very dangerous message if they are to be dismissed without proper investigation because of that possibility. Surely that would, in effect, make Assange above the law?

strobe wrote: »

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

Perhaps commendable in light of the abuse and vitriol being heaped on those who have brought the charges against him. I believe him innocent until proven guilty; I also believe that his accusers should be treated with respect until their accusations have been proven baseless. What if the claims of the women are true? Can you imagine the pain and hurt being caused to them, if so, by the claim they are liars and perjurers? By the fact that son many celebrities are lining up to support Assange, even though they have no notion of the details of the charges?

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.

I explained that above. It was meant in a facetious manner. Although, were Assange to receive hundereds of thousands in monetary support, then I don't think it unreasonable that his alleged victims would receive funds to proceed with the case if necessary. However, the main point I was making was to contrast between the adulation and support of Assange compared to the villification of those who might actually have suffered at his hands.

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.

I don't think anyone should be denied donations. I think it says a lot though when a man accused of rape should be showered with such support to the detriment of his alleged victims.

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.

I dislike how Wikileaks goes about its business. I welcome the idea that motivated Assange in establishing Wikileaks, ie the dissemination of information vital tot he public interest, but that is far from what Wikileaks is about. Anyway, whether I disapprove or otherwise of the site or its activities is immaterial to my belief that everyone should have to answer before the law if required.

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.

I believe the key word is ALLEGED. Innocent until proven guilty is supposedly a virtue of the United States and the rest of the free world.

The irony of talking about people being above the law when those in power use the full extent of their machinations to supress the truth about their actions.

I also applaud the vigour of the ire you direct at Mr. Assange and am not the least bit surprised to find none of it directed at the disgraceful behaviour of the various governments and organisations involved in this fiasco.

But hey, alleged terrorists should get kidnapped and tortured and alleged rapists should get criminalised and denounced while alleged secret agents of alleged governments should always be allowed to allegedly kidnap and torture allegedly innocent people all, allegedly, in the name of democracy, freedom and most of all of course, alleged free speech.

Memnoch wrote: »

I also applaud the vigour of the ire you direct at Mr. Assange and am not the least bit surprised to find none of it directed at the disgraceful behaviour of the various governments and organisations involved in this fiasco.

Examples of this disgraceful behaviour that relates directly to the accusations in Sweden?

Memnoch wrote: »

But hey, alleged terrorists should get kidnapped and tortured and alleged rapists should get criminalised and denounced while alleged secret agents of alleged governments should always be allowed to allegedly kidnap and torture allegedly innocent people all, allegedly, in the name of democracy, freedom and most of all of course, alleged free speech.

But hey............. off topic........

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/assange-believes-he-will-be-extradited-to-us-485788.html

5/12/2010 - 10:55:16
A friend of Julian Assange has claimed the Wikileaks founder believes he will eventually be sent to America if extradited to Sweden.

Officials in Stockholm successfully appealed after he was given bail by a London court.

He is now being held in jail ahead of another court hearing.

His lawyer Mark Stephens said Mr Assange must be released temporarily for justice to be done.

no kidding

and i thought this piece of the article was interesting from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11997137

Mr Stephens told the BBC on Wednesday that he was in the process of gathering the £200,000 in cash and had received a number of offers of money from members of the general public.
He said Mr Assange was accused of the lowest category of rape under Swedish law - an offence which authorities there had never previously used as grounds for extradition.

The Aussie wrote: »

there should be a sign at Sydney International Airport saying "Welcome to Little America".

to be fair, i reckon this could be put in Irish Airports as well

Finally released http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12005930