Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

fasttalkerchat · 30-06-2012 10:45AM

Helix wrote: »

he didnt use a condom, she thought he did

by swedish law that's rape

It could be argued that he tried to get her pregnant. Its like women putting holes in condoms.
Its obviously not rape but still questions need to be answered.

juan.kerr · 30-06-2012 10:52AM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Should he be free or jailed ?? Opinions based purely on allegations of release of secret information.

Should the poll not be on his alleged offenses in Sweden? Afterall that is what the arrest warrant relates to?

Or are we perpetuating the conspiracy theory that it is all a ploy to get him to a country that will 'rendition' him?

I wonder would he be prepared to face the courts for these alleged offences in a 'neutral' court?

Hande hoche! · 30-06-2012 10:54AM

Pedant wrote: »

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.

You got some tight rhymes son!

Chain_reaction · 30-06-2012 11:17AM

juan.kerr wrote: »

Should the poll not be on his alleged offenses in Sweden? Afterall that is what the arrest warrant relates to?

Or are we perpetuating the conspiracy theory that it is all a ploy to get him to a country that will 'rendition' him?

I wonder would he be prepared to face the courts for these alleged offences in a 'neutral' court?

It's not a conspiracy theory.

Pretty sure everyone can smell the rabbit being boiled.

biko · 30-06-2012 11:23AM

Merged with the massive Wikileaks/Assange thread.

juan.kerr · 30-06-2012 11:24AM

Chain_reaction wrote: »

It's not a conspiracy theory.

Fair enough, so there is proof?

Jester252 · 30-06-2012 12:04PM

So people should not think he should answer question about the investigation in Sweden and its okay to run because you think that the UN are trying to catch him. By moving him from the UK to Sweden under "false" charges and then from Sweden to the USA. You do know that this is not money laundering right. If anything it would make it harder to move him from Sweden to the USA. Hell why was he not moved from the UK to USA under the same charges or if they want to get rid off him how come he didn't have an accident?

paddy147 · 30-06-2012 12:41PM

Why would you run into a diplomatic building,hide and then plead with that country for help,if you are innocent and have done nothing wrong?

Surely you would want to prove yourself innocent and then go and sue the people who accused you of such serious crimes.

So why would you go and hide,if you are innocent??

fasttalkerchat · 30-06-2012 12:46PM

paddy147 wrote: »

Why would you run into a diplomatic building,hide and then plead with that country for help,if you are innocent and have done nothing wrong?

Surely you would want to prove yourself innocent and then go and sue the people who accused you of such serious crimes.

So why would you go and hide,if you are innocent??

They will extradite him on rape charges. They are dropped and then they hand him over to america.

paddy147 · 30-06-2012 12:48PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

They will extradite him on rape charges. They are dropped and then they hand him over to america.

Whats he wanted for in the USA?

Is it to do with the wiki leaks and all the file releases?

Jester252 · 30-06-2012 12:48PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

They will extradite him on rape charges. They are dropped and then they hand him over to america.

But why UK-Sweden-USA. That would attract a lot more attention to the the process and its a election year also so pressure from people would have him released

fasttalkerchat · 30-06-2012 12:51PM

paddy147 wrote: »

Whats he wanted for in the USA?

Is it to do with the wiki leaks and all the file releases?

Yea. The USA won't be afraid of public pressure. They have people in prison for similar things already.

juan.kerr · 30-06-2012 01:35PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

They will extradite him on rape charges. They are dropped and then they hand him over to america.

What is this based on? Opinion? Fact? Conspiracy theory?

fasttalkerchat · 30-06-2012 01:50PM

juan.kerr wrote: »

What is this based on? Opinion? Fact? Conspiracy theory?

I'm giving his logic not my opinion of what's going on.

paddy147 · 30-06-2012 01:55PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I'm giving his logic not my opinion of what's going on.

How can you know what "his" logic is though??

For all you know,he may very well have sexualy assaulted/raped those women.

And that maybe,he is trying to use every avenue and scheme available to him to avoid getting done in Sweden for that "aledged" very serious crime.

fasttalkerchat · 30-06-2012 01:59PM

paddy147 wrote: »

How can you know what "his" logic is though??

For all you know,he may very well have sexualy assaulted/raped those women.

And that maybe,he is trying to use every avenue and scheme available to him to avoid getting done in Sweden for that "aledged" very serious crime.

I'm only guessing. I don't think anyone here can give a definitive answer without reading his mind.

There is no allegation that he actually raped anyone AFAIK. Its just alleged that he didn't use a condom which under Swedish law comes under the same charge.

Helix · 30-06-2012 03:53PM

paddy147 wrote: »

Whats he wanted for in the USA?

Is it to do with the wiki leaks and all the file releases?

correct. he's wanted for breaking laws in america without being an american, or being in america. it's like the states throwing every dutch person who smokes weed in a cafe behind bars in america

Overheal · 30-06-2012 03:55PM

Helix wrote: »

correct. he's wanted for breaking laws in america without being an american, or being in america. it's like the states throwing every dutch person who smokes weed in a cafe behind bars in america

No its more like if an Irish person mailed me the Irish Constitution and I wiped my arse with it, the Irish government would love to have a few words with me.

Helix · 30-06-2012 04:00PM

Overheal wrote: »

No its more like if an Irish person mailed me the Irish Constitution and I wiped my arse with it, the Irish government would love to have a few words with me.

why would they have any right to have a word with you unless

a) you were irish
b) you were living in ireland when you did it
c) you were a tourist in ireland when you did it
d) irish law actually applied to you (eg you were serving in the irish military abroad)

otherwise those laws are not applicable to you. america's laws don't apply to me, nor to you, nor to julian assange so long as we're not in america or working for american headquartered companies

*edit*

even if you were irish and broke irish law without being in ireland, it's no business of the irish government, except in a tiny number of cases where you're representing the country in an official capacity

Tym · 30-06-2012 04:01PM

Its just alleged that he didn't use a condom which under Swedish law comes under the same charge.

Is that a real law:S I keep hearing that, but I have no idea if its true or not.

Helix · 30-06-2012 04:06PM

Tym wrote: »

Is that a real law:S I keep hearing that, but I have no idea if its true or not.

it's true

humanji · 30-06-2012 05:27PM

Tym wrote: »

Is that a real law:S I keep hearing that, but I have no idea if its true or not.

It's not really that simple. The charges according to wikipedia are:

According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.[235][236]

Daithi 1 · 01-07-2012 05:05PM

humanji wrote: »

It's not really that simple. The charges according to wikipedia are:

According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.[235][236]

Whole things sounds pretty shady, but....

Can put erect penis inside her vagina with condom but cant push erect penis against her body ?...

Victims, wernt Ursula and Sabina Eriksson by any chance ?

Biggins · 05-07-2012 01:56PM

WikiLeaks 'releasing Syrian files'

The WikiLeaks website said today it had begun publishing more than two million emails from Syrian government officials that would embarrass Damascus and its opponents amid the 16-month rebellion.

WikiLeaks said in a statement the emails were from Syrian political figures, government ministries and companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012...

"It helps us not merely to criticise one group or another, but to understand their interests, actions and thoughts. It is only through understanding this conflict that we can hope to resolve it."

...WikiLeaks said the emails, which it has called "The Syria Files, would shine a light on the inner workings of the Syrian government and economy, and "also reveal how the West and Western companies say one thing and do another".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0705/breaking28.html

biko · 29-09-2012 11:55AM

The US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.

pablomakaveli · 29-09-2012 12:06PM

biko wrote: »

The US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.

Seems to be a lot of hysteria and exaggeration in that clip. For one any US military personnel are bound under military law not to share classified information so thats not a big shock.

And secondly given that classified information given to wikileaks could end up in the enemies hands it shouldnt be surprising to see sharing information cwith wikileaks as classed as sharing with the enemy.

I think any other nations military would view it the same with their personnel.

karma_ · 29-09-2012 01:11PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Seems to be a lot of hysteria and exaggeration in that clip. For one any US military personnel are bound under military law not to share classified information so thats not a big shock.

And secondly given that classified information given to wikileaks could end up in the enemies hands it shouldnt be surprising to see sharing information cwith wikileaks as classed as sharing with the enemy.

I think any other nations military would view it the same with their personnel.

That's insane, and a fat load of bollocks to be fúcking blunt. Why don;t we just shut down all newspapers and thousands of websites before they get branded as enemies of the state.

pablomakaveli · 29-09-2012 04:56PM

karma_ wrote: »

That's insane, and a fat load of bollocks to be fúcking blunt. Why don;t we just shut down all newspapers and thousands of websites before they get branded as enemies of the state.

Why? It doesnt take much intelligence to know that states and militaries need to keep classified information from hostile nations in case it is used to harm them militarily or economically. You cant seriously be unable to grasp why the US wouldnt want their military personnel to be givingclassified informartion to wikileaks.

karma_ · 29-09-2012 05:06PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Why? It doesnt take much intelligence to know that states and militaries need to keep classified information from hostile nations in case it is used to harm them militarily or economically. You cant seriously be unable to grasp why the US wouldnt want their military personnel to be givingclassified informartion to wikileaks.

Of course I understand why a military would want it's secrets kept buried. What I object to is assigning wikileaks and Assange the same status as terrorists.

It would also be a good idea, if you intend to have subtle digs at a posters intelligence, or their ability to comprehend simple notions to use correct spelling and punctuation.

pablomakaveli · 29-09-2012 05:18PM

karma_ wrote: »

Of course I understand why a military would want it's secrets kept buried. What I object to is assigning wikileaks and Assange the same status as terrorists.

It would also be a good idea, if you intend to have subtle digs at a posters intelligence, or their ability to comprehend simple notions to use correct spelling and punctuation.

Perhaps you could stop personalizing the debate.I swear some people lose all run of themselves in any discussion about America.

If wikileaks are putting classified information into the open then the US government will see them as a hostile organization this isnt in doubt. But theres no evidence they view them on the same level as Al-Qaeda. This is just an overreaction.

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments