Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Kylo Ren · 30-06-2012 03:35AM

1ZRed wrote: »

Who?

Could you not of googled him?

Sindri · 30-06-2012 03:35AM

I thought he was accused of rape? And wasn't he more a public spokesman or figurehead* for Anonymous and the like?

*Read as fall guy.

policarp · 30-06-2012 03:41AM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Yeah for telling the truth....

My point.
Where's the proof. ?

Kurz · 30-06-2012 03:43AM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

The white haired fella from Sweden.

He's from Australia.

hatrickpatrick · 30-06-2012 03:47AM

On the leak charges? Absolutely not. Aside from the fact that government should be more transparent in the first place, he merely published the information he was given - he didn't personally 'steal' it. Should all media sources be banned from publishing leaked documents they are given? Think of the number of scandals which would have gone unnoticed and unpunished if that was the case.

On the rape charges? If he's guilty, sure. Based on the available evidence in the public domain, the credibility of those accusing him is in absolutely massive doubt (one of them previously wrote an article on how to use the legal system to get revenge for being hurt or screwed over, then subsequently tried to cover it up after making the accusation - among other things). However, I support his fight against extradition. It's very clear that the rape charge is being used as a pawn in a much bigger game here. Look at how dismally most sexual allegations are pursued, I doubt an ordinary person would have even a hundreth of the resources put in to be brought back for mere questioning about an as yet uncharged offense. It's a joke.

I honestly feel for his accusers as well. Although based on what I've heard about them I have serious doubts about their motives in accusing him, I've heard that at least one of them wanted to withdraw the allegation but was told she would be prosecuted for making a false claim if she did so.
It strikes me that when accusing him, they might not have realized that the accusation would be used as a pawn and that it would land Assange in far deeper sh*t than anticipated. Remember that the accusation was made in August 2010 - this was before the diplomatic cables leak, which is the leak which most infuriated the Americans. They might not have realized the full ramifications of what they were doing at the time, which would tie in pretty well with the report that they tried to withdraw the claim later.

Helix · 30-06-2012 03:47AM

jesus christ this thread is an eye-opener for complete and utter ignorance isnt it

DEFTLEFTHAND · 30-06-2012 03:48AM

This has technicality written all over it. Rape is the most serious sexual offence. These silly women would want to be very careful.

Helix · 30-06-2012 03:49AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

This has technicality written all over it. Rape is the most serious sexual offence. These silly women would want to be very careful.

rape in sweden isnt the same as rape here by legal definition

Daithi 1 · 30-06-2012 03:52AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

On the leak charges? Absolutely not. Aside from the fact that government should be more transparent in the first place, he merely published the information he was given - he didn't personally 'steal' it. Should all media sources be banned from publishing leaked documents they are given? Think of the number of scandals which would have gone unnoticed and unpunished if that was the case.

On the rape charges? If he's guilty, sure. Based on the available evidence in the public domain, the credibility of those accusing him is in absolutely massive doubt (one of them previously wrote an article on how to use the legal system to get revenge for being hurt or screwed over, then subsequently tried to cover it up after making the accusation - among other things). However, I support his fight against extradition. It's very clear that the rape charge is being used as a pawn in a much bigger game here. Look at how dismally most sexual allegations are pursued, I doubt an ordinary person would have even a hundreth of the resources put in to be brought back for mere questioning about an as yet uncharged offense. It's a joke.

I honestly feel for his accusers as well. Although based on what I've heard about them I have serious doubts about their motives in accusing him, I've heard that at least one of them wanted to withdraw the allegation but was told she would be prosecuted for making a false claim if she did so.
It strikes me that when accusing him, they might not have realized that the accusation would be used as a pawn and that it would land Assange in far deeper sh*t than anticipated. Remember that the accusation was made in August 2010 - this was before the diplomatic cables leak, which is the leak which most infuriated the Americans. They might not have realized the full ramifications of what they were doing at the time, which would tie in pretty well with the report that they tried to withdraw the claim later.

Nice reply.

I was wondering if more people thought he was innocent, than government type thought he was guilty... Seems like a classic character assassination to me, but that's just my opinion.
WIll be interesting to see if popular opinion wins over the system. It should illuminate the difference and divide between the two.

SouthTippBass · 30-06-2012 03:54AM

Jumbo sausage roll?

Helix · 30-06-2012 03:56AM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

WIll be interesting to see if popular opinion wins over the system. It should illuminate the difference and divide between the two.

the system doesnt come into it. if he's granted asylum in ecuador then there'll be no trial

DEFTLEFTHAND · 30-06-2012 03:57AM

Helix wrote: »

rape in sweden isnt the same as rape here by legal definition

What is the Swedish legal definition of rape. We can still pick bones at Civil law.

Helix · 30-06-2012 03:57AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What is the Swedish legal definition of rape. We can still pick bones at Civil law.

he didnt use a condom, she thought he did

by swedish law that's rape

Chuck Stone · 30-06-2012 03:58AM

All hail the Emperor of the Anarchists.

Whistle blowing is important. Julian Assange isn't.

Daithi 1 · 30-06-2012 03:59AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

On the leak charges? Absolutely not. Aside from the fact that government should be more transparent in the first place, he merely published the information he was given - he didn't personally 'steal' it. Should all media sources be banned from publishing leaked documents they are given? Think of the number of scandals which would have gone unnoticed and unpunished if that was the case.

On the rape charges? If he's guilty, sure. Based on the available evidence in the public domain, the credibility of those accusing him is in absolutely massive doubt (one of them previously wrote an article on how to use the legal system to get revenge for being hurt or screwed over, then subsequently tried to cover it up after making the accusation - among other things). However, I support his fight against extradition. It's very clear that the rape charge is being used as a pawn in a much bigger game here. Look at how dismally most sexual allegations are pursued, I doubt an ordinary person would have even a hundreth of the resources put in to be brought back for mere questioning about an as yet uncharged offense. It's a joke.

I honestly feel for his accusers as well. Although based on what I've heard about them I have serious doubts about their motives in accusing him, I've heard that at least one of them wanted to withdraw the allegation but was told she would be prosecuted for making a false claim if she did so.
It strikes me that when accusing him, they might not have realized that the accusation would be used as a pawn and that it would land Assange in far deeper sh*t than anticipated. Remember that the accusation was made in August 2010 - this was before the diplomatic cables leak, which is the leak which most infuriated the Americans. They might not have realized the full ramifications of what they were doing at the time, which would tie in pretty well with the report that they tried to withdraw the claim later.

Helix wrote: »

the system doesnt come into it. if he's granted asylum in ecuador then there'll be no trial

Would the system come into it if he wasnt granted asylum in Ecuador ?:)

MagicSean · 30-06-2012 03:59AM

Helix wrote: »

he didnt use a condom, she thought he did

by swedish law that's rape

Sounds reasonable.

Helix · 30-06-2012 04:02AM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Would the system come into it if he wasnt granted asylum in Ecuador ?:)

it would, but he will be granted asylum, so it doesnt really matter either way

the issue is that sweden will allow him to be extradited to america. i dont think there'd be any issue with it from most people otherwise. how someone who isnt from america, never lived in america and never broke any laws in america can be extradited to america is beyond me

Rango555 · 30-06-2012 04:02AM

Helix wrote: »

he didnt use a condom, she thought he did

by swedish law that's rape

Not only that... it is enough of a "charge" to have Interpol issue an international arrest warrent for him. The man should be free to conduct his business... not running for asylum to Ecuador to then face the bull**** charges against him.

Zebra3 · 30-06-2012 04:04AM

Helix wrote: »

the system doesnt come into it. if he's granted asylum in ecuador then there'll be no trial

So long as he's prepared to stay living in their embassy in London, yeah.

As soon as he steps out the door, he's done for.

hatrickpatrick · 30-06-2012 04:09AM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Nice reply.

I was wondering if more people thought he was innocent, than government type thought he was guilty... Seems like a classic character assassination to me, but that's just my opinion.
WIll be interesting to see if popular opinion wins over the system. It should illuminate the difference and divide between the two.

I don't buy the idea that the women were paid off by the CIA or anything.
HAving read much about them and about the scenario, the woman scorned angle seems the most likely to me. The story I've pieced together is basically, he sleeps with one of them, she's delighted (even tweeting that she'd spent the night with a really cool guy etc the next morning), he sleeps with the second one, same thing, then they meet at a conference, discover that he's basically two timed both of them, and decide to f*ck him over.

The blog has been deleted since the allegations (I wonder why!) but one of them is apparently a radical feminist who wrote a blog all about how to use the legal system to get revenge on someone who hurts or cheats on you.

The fact that they subsequently tried to withdraw the allegation says to me that they didn't realize at the time that this was much bigger than just them and Assange, and that their allegation would be used by the US and others to get him for much more serious charges.

One final dent to the credibility of the case, little known fact: The original prosecutor dropped the case, which I'm sure most of you are aware of. But did you know that the other prosecutor from a different city who reopened it - bizarre and unusual in and of itself - is a personal friend of at least one of the accusers? Can't remember the source for this but it was revealed shortly after the allegation came out and was overshadowed by the cables leak which had just begun at the time.

The whole thing absolutely reeks, and that's coming from someone who most Boardsies will know generally advocates far harsher penalties for violent crime than we have now. This one is too fishy, too many suspicious events and too many things not adding up.
If he hasn't been charged yet why cant they come and question him in Britain for instance? That's not unheard of at all, for foreign police to come and question somebody before deciding whether to extradite them in the first place...?

DEFTLEFTHAND · 30-06-2012 04:12AM

Helix wrote: »

he didnt use a condom, she thought he did

by swedish law that's rape

The civil law is an ass in this regard, the common law can easily defeat such a claim. If you consent to sexual intercourse there can be no rape.

Daithi 1 · 30-06-2012 04:18AM

Helix wrote: »

it would, but he will be granted asylum, so it doesnt really matter either way

the issue is that sweden will allow him to be extradited to america. i dont think there'd be any issue with it from most people otherwise. how someone who isnt from america, never lived in america and never broke any laws in america can be extradited to america is beyond me

But if Ecuador didnt come to his rescue...

policarp · 30-06-2012 04:31AM

As far as I'm concerned,he's as good as Bertie.

Loads of stories close to the truth. . .

Jesus Wept · 30-06-2012 04:44AM

Always wear a few condoms.

policarp · 30-06-2012 04:59AM

Andy Carroll wrote: »

Always wear a few condoms.

And make sure she's on the PILL. . .

Helix · 30-06-2012 05:09AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The civil law is an ass in this regard, the common law can easily defeat such a claim. If you consent to sexual intercourse there can be no rape.

not in sweden - hence the whole rigmarole

Helix · 30-06-2012 05:09AM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

But if Ecuador didnt come to his rescue...

they will, so it's irrelevant

Pedant · 30-06-2012 05:12AM

Yo-yo-yo, guess what, daddio.
Boards isn't a court;
It's gettin' in the way of the flow.

So now I'm looking at my clock,
Sayin' "in before the lock".

Word.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 30-06-2012 05:28AM

Helix wrote: »

not in sweden - hence the whole rigmarole

Quite, I struggle to comprehend such a flawed system.

fasttalkerchat · 30-06-2012 10:38AM

I think there should be a court case via video link. If he's found guilty, deport him. If not guilty give him protective asylum.

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments