Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy [Archive]

RedAnarchist

19th June 2012, 23:03

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is seeking political asylum at Ecuador's London embassy, the country's foreign minister has said.

"Ecuador is studying and analysing the request," Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters in Quito.

On 14 June, Britain's Supreme Court dismissed Mr Assange's bid to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes.

He has denied the allegations, saying they are politically motivated.

The Supreme Court has given him until 28 June before extradition proceedings can start.

Swedish prosecutors want to question him over allegations of rape and sexual assault made by two female former Wikileaks volunteers in mid-2010 but have not filed any charges.

Mr Assange, whose Wikileaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, claims the sex was consensual.

'Minimum guarantees'
In a statement, Ecuador's embassy said he had arrived there on Tuesday afternoon to seek asylum.

"As a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights, with an obligation to review all applications for asylum, we have immediately passed his application on to the relevant department in Quito," it said.

"While the department assesses Mr Assange's application, Mr Assange will remain at the embassy, under the protection of the Ecuadorean government."

It said the decision to consider the bid for asylum "should in no way be interpreted as the government of Ecuador interfering in the judicial processes of either the United Kingdom or Sweden."

Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said Mr Assange had claimed he was being persecuted
Mr Assange issued a statement, saying he was "grateful to the Ecuadorean ambassador and the government of Ecuador for considering my application".

Associated Press quoted Mr Patino as telling reporters Mr Assange had written to Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa saying he was being persecuted.

Mr Patino said that the Australian had claimed "the authorities in his country will not defend his minimum guarantees in front of any government".

Mr Assange said he would not be protected from being extradited to "a foreign country that applies the death penalty for the crime of espionage and sedition," Mr Patino said.

The anti-secrecy campaigner fears extradition to Sweden may lead to him being sent to the US to face separate charges relating to Wikileaks, for which he could face the death penalty.

Swedish assurance
But Swedish authorities have said the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) would intervene if Mr Assange was to face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial" in the US.

Mr Assange could still take his case against extradition to the ECHR and has until 28 June to make the move.

Vaughan Smith, a friend who put Mr Assange up at his Norfolk home until December 2011, told the BBC he understood why he was seeking asylum.

"There's been an organised campaign to undermine him in recent months in Britain," Mr Smith said. "And he believed he would not get justice in Sweden."

Wikileaks has posted an alert on its Twitter feed: "ALERT: Julian Assange has requested political asylum and is under the protection of the Ecuadorian embassy in London."

It said Ecuador had offered asylum as early as November 2010.

Ecuador's deputy foreign minister said in 2010 his country was offering Mr Assange residency because it wanted to give him the opportunity to freely present the information he had.

However, President Rafael Correa subsequently dismissed the idea, which he said neither he nor Mr Patino had approved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18514726

Os Cangaceiros

19th June 2012, 23:28

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 03:46

I don't understand why he doesn't just go to Sweden.

Because he's a rapist.

Yazman

20th June 2012, 09:45

Because he's a rapist.

I'll believe this when it's substantiated. I actually do support the principle, "innocent until proven guilty." Until that time this does seem like an obvious frameup to me.

Bronco

20th June 2012, 11:42

He's on quite good terms with the Ecuadorian President I believe, he had him on his show on RT, which is quite ironic in a sense given that Correa is currently trying to place limits on the freedom of the press

svenne

20th June 2012, 15:08

I'll believe this when it's substantiated. I actually do support the principle, "innocent until proven guilty." Until that time this does seem like an obvious frameup to me.

Isn't it a tad hard to prove him innocent, since he refuses to go to Sweden? I think it's pretty obvious Assange's not entirely innocent in this case, and that he knows he'll be sentenced if he comes here.

ed miliband

20th June 2012, 15:22

strange fellow

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 15:54

I'll believe this when it's substantiated. I actually do support the principle, "innocent until proven guilty." Until that time this does seem like an obvious frameup to me.

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

Yazman

20th June 2012, 16:07

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

I think it's pretty plain for all to see that you are using a very underhanded tactic here, attempting to paint me as sexist and supporting patriarchy simply because I don't accept an assumption of guilt. This has nothing to do with it - if Assange was accused of murdering somebody, or raping a small boy, or armed robbery, etc I STILL would not accept an assumption of guilt. There is NO situation where it is acceptable to treat a person as guilty without a trial. Let it be proven first. This is the very reason why I am an atheist - I fully expect claims to be proven. I don't just accept them.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be tried in court for it, but I'm saying that it's unjust to presume guilt.

However, I think Assange is well within his right to seek asylum as he is not receiving any of the protection or assistance that he is entitled to as an Australian citizen. He is effectively abandoned by them, the same state that has actively sought to apprehend him and turn him over to the US.

But your post here is extremely underhanded. You might as well paint me as a nazi for supporting the Nuremburg Trials, or as an islamic fundamentalist for supporting a trial for Osama (and opposing his killing).

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 16:43

Usual nonsense Assange-supporting chauvenism.

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/i-still-think-julian-assange-is-a-rapist/ - this more than ever. Fuck Assange and his apologist fanboys.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

20th June 2012, 16:48

I don't understand why he doesn't just go to Sweden. It's not like he has a warrant out for his arrest there, he's just wanted for questioning.

Apparently it's part of some conspiracy (or so his side has said) to get him to be extradited from Sweden to the USA. But the UK has extradition agreements with the USA too, and I've read that they're actually stronger than the extradition agreements the USA has with Sweden. So I don't get it.
On the matter of why Britain didn't extradite Assange to the US themselves, I suggest you read this post. I found it informative: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#WUKJA
Although if you wish to ignore it because of the site I gleaned it from, fine.

In my opinion any cursory glance at the case will reveal that the charges are trumped up at the very least. The Swedish state has not even filed any formal charges against Assange. As for the so-called conspiracy, there is a strong indication following the Stratfor email leaks that the US has drawn up a sealed indictment from a secret grand jury for Assange's arrest. Considering the measures that the Obama administration has taken against whistleblowers thus far, I don't think the possibility should be discounted.

@sam_b: If you're seriously expecting that we treat that blog post as evidence of Assange's guilt, you're sorely mistaken. You seem to lack any critical faculties as to the matter of Assange's guilt or innocence. I hope you can rectify this in the near future.

Yazman

20th June 2012, 16:50

Usual nonsense Assange-supporting chauvenism.

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/i-still-think-julian-assange-is-a-rapist/ - this more than ever. Fuck Assange and his apologist fanboys.

I don't care about Assange, what I care about is that you're proclaiming a human being guilty WITHOUT TRIAL. If such a trial had already happened, fine, call him a rapist or a deviant or whatever the fuck you want to call him, I don't care. The problem here is that you're stating somebody is guilty without it being proven beyond all reasonable doubt in public. The expectation that claims should be proven conclusively and beyond doubt is a part of having a scientific mindset, and it's important when thinking critically. As an atheist I place a high value on this, as well.

My response to you was nothing to do with what Assange did and everything to do with criticism of your automatic assumption of guilt. It has massive repercussions for society.

So yes of course Sam_b, let's not have a trial at all, let's just proclaim him guilty and send him off to the gulag. Who cares about accountability or justice, somebody made a claim so it must automatically be true right? Let's begin the purging while we're at it, since we're going to do away with the presumption of innocence!

Bronco

20th June 2012, 16:59

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

There was a thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/false-rape-conviction-t172057/index.html?t=172057&highlight=false+rape+allegation) a couple of weeks ago about a kid who had to serve 5 years in jail because of a false rape allegation, would that not suggest that maybe someone's word is not always enough to decide if someone is guilty or not?

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 17:01

Tim Finnegan

20th June 2012, 17:02

I don't care about Assange, what I care about is that you're proclaiming a human being guilty WITHOUT TRIAL. If such a trial had already happened, fine, call him a rapist or a deviant or whatever the fuck you want to call him, I don't care. The problem here is that you're stating somebody is guilty without it being proven beyond all reasonable doubt for the public.
RevLeft mod is bourgeois liberal. News at 11.

Yazman

20th June 2012, 17:06

RevLeft mod is bourgeois liberal. News at 11.

Yes, because opposing imprisonment and punishment of people by the state without trial is certainly bourgeois!

Another supporter of purges and gulags here, I see.

wsg1991

20th June 2012, 17:06

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

how did this guy became a Forum moderator ?

the fact he is using very cheap tactic ,
'if you say this woman is lying or assange might be innocent , then you are against Women rights '
this kind of tactics is the same used by Zionists : if you are against Isreal action then you are anti Semitic

then removing points from my reputation 'taking feminist stance should be what every moderator do '

i don't think it's a feminist stance to say that any Rape accuse is automatically true

perhaps the real feminist stance is that women and men have the same ability to false accuse someone , which no one did deny here

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2012, 17:17

The fact why rape convictions are so low is because they habitually boil down to "her word" against "his word" without any proof or evidence to substantiate either claim. Also....inter sex rape conviction rates are equally as low for the same reason.

It is not a matter of who you believe or not but a matter of what can be proven. And simply put...nobodies word is good enough to form the sole basis of a conviction.

Or as the lawyer of the two women puts it:

"In Sweden, like in other countries, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecutor. The prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a client is guilty of the crimes. Beyond reasonable doubt is very high – I don't know whether she can reach that level. And history tells you that you can reach different judgments on the same material depending on how you interpret that material."

What Sam_b is doing has nothing to do with burgeoisie or not. It has to do with his assessment that somebody is guilty because a woman says so and he decides to believe the woman because he considers this to be more revolutionary. He also considers anybody who does not simply believe one side or the other but wants to see some proof to be burgeoisie....and excusing or advocating patriarchy because they do not automatically support and unconditionally believe a woman. Instead of making this a debate about guilty because of evidence he is trying to make this a debate about wether or not revolutionaries should side with a woman no matter what....and that any man is automatically guilty based on words alone and not on any evidence...because he is a man and a woman says he is guilty. He is making this about wether or not one sex is more believable because of their sex instead of the evidence.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

20th June 2012, 17:19

The fact of the matter is that it is a copout for the real issue, and the real issue that rape conviction is so low, being that nobody ever ever ever seems to, you know, believe the woman. Your tacit support for his asylum claim when he's running from accountability for his actions flatly contradict what you say. Like it or not you are apologising for Assange.
No, rape conviction isn't the fact of this matter. In fact, the alleged rape is actually playing the role of "copout". It is a distraction from the broad political issues at hand regarding the leaking of sensitive government material that harms the efforts of imperialism in general, the United States government in particular. If this was simply a matter of rape, how can you account for the fact that Assange is being placed in the yoke of a 2002 extradition law that was intended for purposes of "counter-terrorism"? You have no evidence that Assange actually raped anybody except your blind passion. And again, that blog post doesn't cut it.

Dunk

20th June 2012, 17:20

My guess is his bid for asylum will probably fail and he'll be handed back over and extradited to Sweden.

His attempt to avoid questioning just raises suspicion. Granted, he's probably paranoid about some conspiracy to be sent to the US, and yes, the timing of the accusation is suspicious.

He seem like an egomaniac to me, and frankly, rapists are often egomaniacs. There is no reason Wikileaks couldn't function without him, and if we're honest with ourselves Wikileaks hasn't leaked much of anything that should be described as substantial, so if it can't function without him we are not at an enormous loss. If Wikileaks goes down it is only a matter of time before another Wikileaks takes it's place.

Do I want him extradited to the US for anything related to Wikileaks? No. Do I want him to face questioning for the alleged sexual assaults? Yes. Could he have done that and then fought any extradition attempts by the US, possibly by seeking out asylum in an embassy located in Sweden? Yes.

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2012, 17:25

He offered to be questioned in the Swedish embassy. This was rejected.

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 17:26

What Sam_b is doing has nothing to do with burgeoisie or not. It has to do with his assessment that somebody is guilty because a woman says so and he decides to believe the woman because he considers this to be more revolutionary. He also considers anybody who does not simply believe one side or the other but wants to see some proof to be burgeoisie....and excusing or advocating patriarchy because they do not automatically support and unconditionally believe a woman. Instead of making this a debate about guilty because of evidence he is trying to make this a debate about wether or not revolutionaries should side with a woman no matter what....and that any man is automatically guilty based on words alone and not on any evidence...because he is a man and a woman says he is guilty. He is making this about wether or not one sex is more believable because of their sex instead of the evidence.

All this covered in posted articles.
Do you ever post anything that isn't complete nonsense?

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 17:28

If this was simply a matter of rape, how can you account for the fact that Assange is being placed in the yoke of a 2002 extradition law that was intended for purposes of "counter-terrorism"? You have no evidence that Assange actually raped anybody except your blind passion. And again, that blog post doesn't cut it.

Sweden don't extradite to the US.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

20th June 2012, 17:35

Sweden don't extradite to the US.
And why is that? Sweden does, in fact, have an extradition treaty with the US. I have no idea as to how many people Sweden has extradited before this, but you cannot deny that Assange being scooped up by the US is a possibility.

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 17:39

Usually for the excuses Assange is using–that he might face the death penalty in the US for his work with Wikileaks–the place you would probably want to seek asylum is Sweden. Sweden is pretty fucking good on not extraditing people: their law means they cannot send someone to a country with the death penalty or for political offences (http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435). And they take CIA rendition flights very seriously (http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military). Simply put, Sweden would not extradite someone like Assange for his work with Wikileaks.

So much for reading the article.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

20th June 2012, 18:02

So much for reading the article.
If you mean that poor excuse for a blog post, then yes, I've read it. I don't believe the writer carried out the necessary research to substantiate his claim. Actually, Sweden has, in fact made deportations of alleged criminals to governments where politically motivated offenses or torture were not only possible, but clear. This was in 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery

That particular man was freely given to the Egyptian authorities, despite the fact that there was no evidence for his wrongdoing, and according to the UN Human Rights Committee, relied on nothing but "diplomatic assurances" for the prevention of possible ill treatment. This did not stop the man from being abused and tortured. See paragraph 11.4: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47975afa21.html

Given all of this, I dispute your claim, and that poster's claim, that the word of Swedish law should be trusted to this extent. In fact, their word is quite meaningless. The notion that they have "stopped" this practice isn't set in stone, because bourgeois law is entirely relative and meaningless. The law can be followed, or not followed, and misinterpreted, at any time. Is this not the ABC of the revolutionary left?

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 18:03

This was in 2001

The new laws were put in place in 2006. Well done!

MEGAMANTROTSKY

20th June 2012, 18:08

The new laws were put in place in 2006. Well done!
True, those "laws" were put into place in 2006. But how is this any assurance that the US will not seek Assange's head on a Swedish platter? I don't see how this invalidates anything I said before. As a rule, I don't believe that any faith should be placed in bourgeois legal proceedings. Governments routinely say things and flagrantly violate them. The Swedish state is not qualitatively different from any other capitalist government, and I think it is misleading for you to say otherwise.

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 18:11

But how is this any assurance that the US will not seek Assange's head on a Swedish platter?

Because no such things have seemingly happened since 2001. All this smacks of is using this as a complete excuse for Assanger to be held accountable for his actions.

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2012, 18:17

All this covered in posted articles.
Do you ever post anything that isn't complete nonsense?

Really?

Because he's a rapist.

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

The fact of the matter is that it is a copout for the real issue, and the real issue that rape conviction is so low, being that nobody ever ever ever seems to, you know, believe the woman.

So....wht exactly was your evidence again Sam?

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2012, 18:18

Because no such things have seemingly happened since 2001. All this smacks of is using this as a complete excuse for Assanger to be held accountable for his actions.

So in your opinion it would be not amiss if Sweden officially guarantees that they won't extradicte to the US? Because Assange has asked that as a guarantee in order to come to Sweden. Except...Sweden refused to give such a guarantee.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

20th June 2012, 18:30

Because no such things have seemingly happened since 2001. All this smacks of is using this as a complete excuse for Assanger to be held accountable for his actions.
That we know of, I'd have to agree, nothing has happened. But I would still insist that the currently pro-US government in Sweden may end up going back on their word easily. That having been said, your justification for Assange's treatment is ridiculous. Needing to be "held accountable for his actions"? What actions? It was not for nothing that the "case" was initially thrown out in Sweden. It was only due to intervention of Claes Borgstrom, a right wing Social Democrat, that it was reopened. There is absolutely no proof that Assange has raped anybody. He hasn't even been charged, so what actions should he be held accountable for? Legally speaking, there doesn't appear to be any case at all. The Swedish state did not even need to go this far to "question" Assange. They could have done so at the Swedish embassy in Britain, which Assange offered and was refused.

And I take offense at your implication that my opposition to your stance "smacks" of some patriarchal excuse. Save the tarring and the feathering. Your stance, which lacks any credibility or evidence, is so flimsy that you might as well do it to yourself.

Edit: Oh, and while I'm at it, I believe it was incredibly unfair for you to award me so much negative reputation. Not only is your claim false, but my stance on Assange is neither patriarchal or reactionary, and your labeling of me as a "fanboy" smacks of intellectual dishonesty. I understand that there is no democracy here, but I feel your actions were unwarranted. And given that other posters are questioning your logic as well, I feel so emboldened to claim that you should feel ashamed of yourself.

Krano

20th June 2012, 18:37

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.
Those charges just happened to pop up when he said he would release Goldman Sachs cables.

Tim Finnegan

20th June 2012, 18:55

Yes, because opposing imprisonment and punishment of people by the state without trial is certainly bourgeois!
Claiming that the bourgeois judicial has an absolute monopoly on truth certainly is, and that's what your insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" as a universal moral imperative amounts to.

Those charges just happened to pop up when he said he would release Goldman Sachs cables.
So the bourgeois state doesn't give two shits about rape until it puts money in the till. Does that really come as a surprise to you?

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2012, 19:17

Claiming that the bourgeois judicial has an absolute monopoly on truth certainly is, and that's what your insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" as a universal moral imperative amounts to.

Really? So your position must then be that he is guilty until he proves he is innocent? This means that everybody is always a potential suspect until they themselves prove they are innocent. Not based on any form of evidence are they guilty but on mere accusation or suspicion of a crime. Everybody is criminal until they provide evidence of the contrary.

I reject that notion as I do reject the notion that the statement that somebody is innocent until proven guilty is a burgeois notion or defense of the burgeois state. I think it is just as valid in a communist/anarchist society as it would be valid in a capitalist society....if people want to convict somebody of a crime they must pose evidence of that person committing the crime. Until they do provide that proof the person is to be considered innocent simply because of the absense of evidence of the contrary and this evidence has been weighted by a judicial council of some sort on the basis of rules. Wether or not they truely are innocent is irrelevant to this notion.

20th June 2012, 19:24

Maybe I missed a memo somewhere, but wasn't Assange accused of a sex offense (the breaking of a condom during sex, something that is apparently punishable in Sweden) as opposed to rape?

As for those that cry "bourgeois! bourgeois!": I for one will defend the principle of "not guilty until proven otherwise" until the end. Leaving that principle brings us right back a the inquisition.

Tim Finnegan

20th June 2012, 19:28

Really? So your position must then be that he is guilty until he proves he is innocent?
My position is that we're capable of making judgements as to his guilt or innocence for ourselves, without having to consult the bourgeois state one way or the other. That should not be difficult for you to understand.

I reject that notion as I do reject the notion that the statement that somebody is innocent until proven guilty is a burgeois notion or defense of the burgeois state. I think it is just as valid in a communist/anarchist society as it would be valid in a capitalist society....if people want to convict somebody of a crime they must pose evidence of that person committing the crime. Until they do provide that proof the person is to be considered innocent simply because of the absense of evidence of the contrary and this evidence has been weighted by a judicial council of some sort on the basis of rules. Wether or not they truely are innocent is irrelevant to this notion.And what is the likelihood, do you think, of Sam B finding himself in such a position where he must personally determine whether or not to dish out punishment to Assange? That's what "innocent until proven guilty" is about, a methodology rather than a moral law, so to object to Sam B coming to such a conclusion simply because it is a conclusion is just so much peevish liberalism.

As for those that cry "bourgeois! bourgeois!": I for one will defend the principle of "not guilty until proven otherwise" until the end. Leaving that principle brings us right back a the inquisition.
You object to the extra-judicial execution of fascists by the Maquis, Partisans, etc.?

20th June 2012, 19:47

You object to the extra-judicial execution of fascists by the Maquis, Partisans, etc.?

How was their collaboration beyond any doubt?

Nevermind, this is already going way off topic.

But again: What rape charges?

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2012, 19:47

My position is that we're capable of making judgements as to his guilt or innocence for ourselves, without having to consult the bourgeois state one way or the other. That should not be difficult for you to understand.

Well I find it difficult to understand how you think you are capable to make that judgement without any evidence and then expect that opinion you are forming to hold up under scrutiny.

So it is according to you perfectly fine to accuse somebody of a crime simply because you formed an opinion on it?

And what is the likelihood, do you think, of Sam B finding himself in such a position where he must personally determine whether or not to dish out punishment to Assange? That's what "innocent until proven guilty" is about, a methodology rather than a moral law, so to object to Sam B coming to such a conclusion simply because it is a conclusion is just so much peevish liberalism.

So what you are saying is that you are perfectly ok for somebody to go around claiming somebody is guilty eventhough you have no evidence? Check.

And further more you support Sam_b's further assessment based on his own opinion on the guilt of Assange that he is perfectly justified to further accuse those who do not agree with being mysogenist rape apologists?

And would you oppose me in my claim you are a pedophile and loudly broadcasting this simply because I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind about you eventhough there is not a shred of evidence I have of making that claim against you?? (I am not claiming you are a pedophile by the way...just sayin)

Or does such an accusation in the very least require some evidence with which I have to back up my claim or otherwise decist in making that claim?

You object to the extra-judicial execution of fascists by the Maquis, Partisans, etc.?

I am saying those situations are vastly different. I would certainly oppose the marquis partisans to extrajudicially execute alledged fascists after the war was over.

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2012, 20:07

His extradiction request from Sweden reads that extradiction is requested on the grounds of him being wanted for questioning in relation to charges brought against him for for charges of sexual misconduct including rape.

He is not charged with anything yet. He is wanted in order to be able to question him. Something which could have been done at the embassy of Sweden but which Sweden refused to do. Or they could have given legal guarantees not to extradict him to another country...which Sweden also refused to do.

The Machine

20th June 2012, 21:35

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

So what you're saying is that when accusations of rape are brought up we should work from the presumption of guilt and if you disagree you're a sexist. Classy.

The Machine

20th June 2012, 21:50

You object to the extra-judicial execution of fascists by the Maquis, Partisans, etc.?

If there was no concrete evidence of their involvement then it's pretty much a lynching so yes.

Seriously you fucking moonbats think it's ok to punish someone for a crime or assign blame with no concrete evidence? following that logic this kid (http://www.telegram.com/article/20120525/NEWS/105259604/1052) should still be rotting in jail.

Tim Finnegan

20th June 2012, 22:34

"hey im just gonna willfully misinterpret everything you say thats totes cool right brah?"

ckaihatsu

20th June 2012, 23:16

Hey, d'you think they have TV and wi-fi at the embassy, 'cause I'm thinking that, um... 'cause, you know, I mean... that is....................

x D

Sam_b

20th June 2012, 23:46

Funny how all the 'likes' these posts are getting defending Assange are from men #justsaying

wsg1991

21st June 2012, 00:04

Funny how all the 'likes' these posts are getting defending Assange are from men #justsaying

give my reputation back you authoritarian bastard !

Princess Luna

21st June 2012, 00:13

Claiming that the bourgeois judicial has an absolute monopoly on truth certainly is, and that's what your insistence on "innocent until proven guilty" as a universal moral imperative amounts to.

So the bourgeois state doesn't give two shits about rape until it puts money in the till. Does that really come as a surprise to you?
I hope you are never falsely arrested, because if so my response will be to automatically assume your guilty. Saying the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be abandoned doesn't make you cool and progressive, it is saying society should abandon core tenants of the enlightenment and go back to the 15th century.....

Peoples' War

21st June 2012, 00:15

Funny how all the 'likes' these posts are getting defending Assange are from men #justsaying
I do support the idea that Assange should be put on trial. Every allegation of rape, sexual assault, etc. should be taken extremely seriously. By those on the left as well, because we may be the ones taking it the most serious in a patriarchal society.

There is definitely overwhelming numbers of cases where the woman is ignored, not believed, in fact blamed for the rape. This is fucked up, and we should fight against it.

However, you can't fight against it by taking the complete opposite stance, that if a woman claims rape it's automatically 100% true, skip the trial and send the alleged rapist to jail.

Your automatic assumption of guilt, your automatic dismissal of the possibility that the governments of nations who want wikileaks dead, is absurd.

Just as absurd, is your automatic claim that everyone who opposes your view that he is guilty is a misogynist, chauvinist, sexist, patriarchy supporter.

What your blatantly ignoring is that those who are supporting Assange, are supporting him not out of sexism, or patriarchy, but out of genuine questions surrounding the situation and the fact that the American government would love nothing better than to give him the Bradley manning treatment.

So, why won't he go back to Sweden? We can't say for sure. There is a possibility that the man is a rapist. There is a possibility that he could be deported to the US to be charged with some shit for heading wikileaks. There is a possibility that both.

marl

21st June 2012, 00:24

Whether or whether not he's a rapist (iirc the charges are brought because, iirc, he was having sex with a women late at night and she fell asleep in the middle of it, and he didn't stop), the fact remains the state is only interested in bringing those that pose a threat to it to justice.

The Machine

21st June 2012, 03:20

Funny how all the 'likes' these posts are getting defending Assange are from men #justsaying

Yeah cause my cock totally informs my political viewpoints. Also I'm glad you're psychic and can tell the irl gender of anonymous avatars on an internet forum. Or are you just making baseless assumptions again? #wheredeydodatat

lol sam b can't back up his baseless accusations so he just neg reps people he disagrees with or calls them names. im with wsg you can take my reputation but you can never take my diginity

The Machine

21st June 2012, 03:22

"hey im just gonna willfully misinterpret everything you say thats totes cool right brah?"

yeah putting yourself in the same camp as a guy who declares a man guilty of a crime he hasn't been accused of with no concrete evidence doesn't give you a lot of room to talk, hoss

ckaihatsu

21st June 2012, 03:36

Yeah cause my cock totally informs my political viewpoints.

If I *also* used my dick to think *politically* there'd be *nothing* of *me* left *at all*...!

x D

Manic Impressive

21st June 2012, 03:42

Funny how all the 'likes' these posts are getting defending Assange are from men #justsaying
Nah I think it's just because people think you're being absurd.

The Machine

21st June 2012, 03:48

hey sam b my mother in law said that you're a rapist and shes an old black lady so if you disagree you're not only a sexist but also a racist and an agist.

wsg1991

21st June 2012, 03:51

Funny how all the 'likes' these posts are getting defending Assange are from men #justsaying

just isn't about gender

this is about
*assange is innocent until proven guilty
*assange is threatened by USA , and there is some suspicious stuff about this accusation and might be even a way to send him to USA
in simpler words Assange is the good guy ( until proven otherwise )

if Assange was a woman and accused of having sex with under age male ( sexual assault ) do you think our opinion would be any different ???

btw Give me back my Reputation !!!

Ocean Seal

21st June 2012, 03:55

Nah I think it's just because people think you're being absurd.

Honestly, I don't get his point that the majority of the likes are male. This forum is mostly male. And there is nothing sexist about saying that some people who are accused of rape are innocent. There are people who are accused of murder who are innocent, that doesn't make me pro-murder.

Anyway, calling someone a sexist/racist on revleft has become the equivalent to calling someone a communist on a conservative site or a Jewish collaborator on stormfront.

This thread is rapidly devolving into shit, and it started with the fucking leftie points campaign at the beginning.

The Machine

21st June 2012, 04:03

This thread is rapidly devolving into shit, and it started with the fucking leftie points campaign at the beginning.

it started 2 posts in when sam b decided that a man is guilty of a crime he isn't accused of based on no concrete evidence. which is ironic because sam b raped and murdered a young girl in 1990

edit: and before you shady admin fucks try to do me like you did rooster, I'm not making rape jokes. I am literally accusing sam b of being a rapist. Sam if you don't turn yourself in at my house for questioning, you're just digging a deeper hole. And again, keep in mind that if you were to deny this accusation you would be a sexist. We're both working with about the same ammount of evidence, the only difference is that Assange isn't on these forums to defend himself.

Tim Finnegan

21st June 2012, 11:41

yeah putting yourself in the same camp as a guy who declares a man guilty of a crime he hasn't been accused of with no concrete evidence doesn't give you a lot of room to talk, hoss
Sam B is not a court of law. Sam B is, rather, Sam B, which you might in infer from the name is not a court of law. Therefore, Sam B is not bound by the axiom of "innocent until proven guilty", because Sam B is not in a position to dish out punishment, and so is not in a position to dish out unjust punishment. Sam B is merely required to formulate opinions which are reasonable, and coherent with the facts. "Assange is a rapist" does not seem self-evidently invalid on either account, because it is certainly feasible that he could be a rapist, and the fact is that in each incident one of the witnessing parties claims that he committed rape, so it is not obviously contrary to the facts.

At the very least, it is not self-evidently more atrocious that Sam B should conclude that Assange is a rapist than it is that you should conclude that the women making the accusations are committing serious acts of slander and perjury, which by asserting Assange's innocence is what you are accusing them of. The only way round this is to adopt a position of ignorance, or in other words to exchange "innocent until proven guilty" for "not guilty until proven guilty", making no definite judgement about what happened until all the facts are clear.

I hope you are never falsely arrested, because if so my response will be to automatically assume your guilty. Saying the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be abandoned doesn't make you cool and progressive, it is saying society should abandon core tenants of the enlightenment and go back to the 15th century.....
Legal methodology =/= universal moral impulse.

I honestly don't know why so many of you so called "revolutionaries" are having such a hard time grasping something as elementary as that.

Ocean Seal

21st June 2012, 13:40

PhoenixAsh

21st June 2012, 13:41

Sam B is not a court of law. Sam B is, rather, Sam B, which you might in infer from the name is not a court of law. Therefore, Sam B is not bound by the axiom of "innocent until proven guilty", because Sam B is not in a position to dish out punishment, and so is not in a position to dish out unjust punishment. Sam B is merely required to formulate opinions which are reasonable, and coherent with the facts. "Assange is a rapist" does not seem self-evidently invalid on either account, because it is certainly feasible that he could be a rapist, and the fact is that in each incident one of the witnessing parties claims that he committed rape, so it is not obviously contrary to the facts.

At the very least, it is not self-evidently more atrocious that Sam B should conclude that Assange is a rapist than it is that you should conclude that the women making the accusations are committing serious acts of slander and perjury, which by asserting Assange's innocence is what you are accusing them of. The only way round this is to adopt a position of ignorance, or in other words to exchange "innocent until proven guilty" for "not guilty until proven guilty", making no definite judgement about what happened until all the facts are clear.

Legal methodology =/= universal moral impulse.

I honestly don't know why so many of you so called "revolutionaries" are having such a hard time grasping something as elementary as that.

Though I agree with some of what you are saying, Sam_b is acting on his opinion towards people who do not agree with him by accusing them of sexism or at the very least creating the air of dissenting opinion being only driven by sexism. I am not necessarilly disagreeing with a statement that a dissenting opinion is, in a universal sense, never driven by sexism but he is making that assessment on the basis of not agreeing with his subjective evaluation which is not based on facts.

Now we have lingual agreements. If you say something or somebody "is" you are stating a fact and/or create the appearance that something is, objectively speaking, true.

ie. Hindsight is a mod <-- fact
ie. Hindsight is an admin <- presented as a fact but not true

If you are stating an opinion you do not use the word "is" unless you make clear that you are not presenting a fact....either by saying "in my opinion" or something like that or adding mittigating words (like "probably" or "perhaps" etc.).

ie. Assange is probably guilty
ie Assange might be guilty
ie In my opinion Assange is guilty

Or you back it up.

ie. Assange is a rapist because..... *evidence*
ie. Assange is guilty because he is convicted

So others can evaluate your opinion.

Not doing so you create conversational dishonesty in a debate. Not to mention that you create a false trueism when speaking to somebody who has no knowledge of the situation.

His statement is rightly being attacked....because it lacks any substantiation....other than subjective interpretation of the known facts. Conversely this also goes for stating that the women are lying.

Now...Sam_b is well within his rights to say he believes Assange to be guilty. And I would not contests such a statement at all...on thebasis that it his opinion and stated as such. Personally I think he is probably right to some degree. But I do contest his factualisation of his opinion for the reasons I stated above.

Tim Finnegan

21st June 2012, 14:31

That would easier to believe if I had ever, anywhere, seen somebody on this forum reprimand for claiming that Assange is innocent.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

21st June 2012, 15:03

Sam B is not in a position to dish out punishment, and so is not in a position to dish out unjust punishment.
Quite true--except for the fact that it isn't. He is a moderator, and he has already "dished out" unjust punishment of a sort on this forum thread. Does massive down-repping count as such? You know, for doing nothing more than disagreeing with his assessment of the Assange case? I believe that it does. That I know of, he has done this to me and wsg1991. Not only that, but his attempts to rebut contrary claims have failed and so resorts to the mudslinging "patriarchy" card. True, down-repping is far better than being suspended or banned. But that doesn't eclipse what he's done here, to us, or his prejudicial behavior.

The only way round this is to adopt a position of ignorance, or in other words to exchange "innocent until proven guilty" for "not guilty until proven guilty", making no definite judgement about what happened until all the facts are clear.
It's true that there are plenty of gaps in the story, so we cannot jump to rash conclusions about either Assange's guilt or innocence. But should we really adopt this "position of ignorance"? So much information has already been released not only in regards to Assange's accusers, but Assange himself, the sequence of events, and most of all the behavior of the Swedish state (as well as the British) in all of this. A position of "ignorance" is simply not possible; and while "definite" judgment is out of the question, making a judgment based on what we know so far is, in general, certainly not out of place.

For my part, I don't think the women are lying, and I never did (leaving aside the possible CIA connection for the moment). Quite the contrary. On the other hand I do believe their grievances have been twisted and manipulated to serve the political agenda of those who wish to try Assange as a terrorist and crush Wikileaks. Therefore it is not a question of whether his accusers are being truthful or not, it is a question of the Swedish state and its behavior in this sexual assault case. It has been both dreadful and suspect. We must not forget, for example, that the Swedish prosecutor's office released Assange's name in connection with sexual assault charge before he was even charged, which is against Swedish law. There are other such discrepancies in the legal proceedings, and with the media mixed in, it has been nothing less than a circus. Indeed, I fear that a full and truthful account of what has happened may end up beyond our grasp for a long time, or even forever.

Tim Finnegan

21st June 2012, 16:04

Quite true--except for the fact that it isn't. He is a moderator, and he has already "dished out" unjust punishment of a sort on this forum thread. Does massive down-repping count as such? You know, for doing nothing more than disagreeing with his assessment of the Assange case? I believe that it does. That I know of, he has done this to me and wsg1991. Not only that, but his attempts to rebut contrary claims have failed and so resorts to the mudslinging "patriarchy" card. True, down-repping is far better than being suspended or banned. But that doesn't eclipse what he's done here, to us, or his prejudicial behavior.
If you think that being able to down-rep somebody is even in the same ball-park as locking them up, then we are simply not on the same page.

It's true that there are plenty of gaps in the story, so we cannot jump to rash conclusions about either Assange's guilt or innocence. But should we really adopt this "position of ignorance"? So much information has already been released not only in regards to Assange's accusers, but Assange himself, the sequence of events, and most of all the behavior of the Swedish state (as well as the British) in all of this. A position of "ignorance" is simply not possible; and while "definite" judgment is out of the question, making a judgment based on what we know so far is, in general, certainly not out of place.
When I say "ignorance", I don't mean blind ignorance, I mean something closer to agnosticism: a refusal to commit to any one conclusion. If we don't have enough evidence to determine what happened, then we must accept that we do not know what happened, rather than simply asserting the conclusion that is politically preferable.

Are we so lacking in evidence? I'm not really sure- I'm agnostic about agnosticism, as it were- but I'm not going to insist that we do or don't. But those of us who have expressed a commitment to "innocent until proven guilty" as a general moral principle, stressing the necessity of a legitimate trial before any conclusion can be fairly drawn, it is necessary to forgo any conclusion that has not yet been fully proven, including that the women in question are liars, or for that matter the state has been involved in any sort of shady activity around the case.

For my part, I don't think the women are lying, and I never did (leaving aside the possible CIA connection for the moment). Quite the contrary. On the other hand I do believe their grievances have been twisted and manipulated to serve the political agenda of those who wish to try Assange as a terrorist and crush Wikileaks. Therefore it is not a question of whether his accusers are being truthful or not, it is a question of the Swedish state and its behavior in this sexual assault case. It has been both dreadful and suspect. We must not forget, for example, that the Swedish prosecutor's office released Assange's name in connection with sexual assault charge before he was even charged, which is against Swedish law. There are other such discrepancies in the legal proceedings, and with the media mixed in, it has been nothing less than a circus. Indeed, I fear that a full and truthful account of what has happened may end up beyond our grasp for a long time, or even forever.So it's acceptable to say "Assange is a rapist", provided that we follow it with a criticism of the handling of the case by the state? Because that is basically what you just did, there.

Sam_b

21st June 2012, 16:28

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

21st June 2012, 17:27

So, back to the topic for a sec.

Summary of the issues, as I see them (apoligies if I miss any key points)

Assange is seeking asylum because he fears extradition to Sweden not soley on the basis of the allegations but that he will then be extradited to the US to face some sort of secret detention and punishment by US authorities.
His supporters perceive the sexual assault / harassment allegations as a cover to get him into Sweden for the said US extradition / rendition. I imagine they believe he is innocent of the charges too.
His detractors see his US extradition fears as a cover for him avoiding facing the charges of sexual assault. I imagine they believe he is guilty of the charges, hence he continued attempts to avoid extradition.

Catch 22 I guess; either he gets asylum or finds some other to remain effectively 'on the run' and so the issue will never be settled and the allegations will hang over him and his accusers forever (he will never get the chance to prove his innocence / his victims are denied a chance to get some kind of justice).
Or, he goes to Sweden and apparently faces the prospect of rendition to the US and who knows what fate for his 'crimes' of WikiLeaks.

I find it hard to make any kind of judgement on this whole saga without making some kind of assumption based on few solid facts; the main one being that Assange's fears of US extradition are justified. If the US extradition element is removed, it becomes a matter of someone accused of a crime who is avoiding having to prove their innocence / face their guilt.

So yeah...not much of an analysis or opinion but I find it difficult to make a clear judegment on this one, but if a gun was to my head and I had to voice an opinion; he's innocent until proven guilty and should face his accusers.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

21st June 2012, 17:32

Okay, this is the last post I'll make in this thread. Being busy will eventually cut in, so I might as well just leave. And I'd like the thread to be back on topic for once. For that end, I've placed everything here in spoiler tags.

If you think that being able to down-rep somebody is even in the same ball-park as locking them up, then we are simply not on the same page.
"Locking them up"? What are you talking about? I am not convinced that you actually read, or understood, my response. Obviously you cannot lock anybody up here for disagreeing. I was speaking of disciplinary measures on this internet forum, on this thread, not legal disciplinary measures. Nothing I said implied that I had brought them into the equation at all; I think I was very specific in that regard. And the moderator in question has certainly meted out "unjust" punishment, in my opinion. Massive down-repping is his right, but it does not mean he was being fair, and it does not mean that his opinion is any more correct. His position within this forum makes his actions come off as abuse, especially because what I said is not indicative of a patriarchal or reactionary defense at all. I don't think it has reflected well on him as far as engaging in honest discussion is concerned.

When I say "ignorance", I don't mean blind ignorance, I mean something closer to agnosticism: a refusal to commit to any one conclusion. If we don't have enough evidence to determine what happened, then we must accept that we do not know what happened, rather than simply asserting the conclusion that is politically preferable.

Are we so lacking in evidence? I'm not really sure- I'm agnostic about agnosticism, as it were- but I'm not going to insist that we do or don't. But those of us who have expressed a commitment to "innocent until proven guilty" as a general moral principle, stressing the necessity of a legitimate trial before any conclusion can be fairly drawn, it is necessary to forgo any conclusion that has not yet been fully proven, including that the women in question are liars, or for that matter the state has been involved in any sort of shady activity around the case.
I agree with you in regards to the women. Labeling them as "liars" will not help one iota in getting to the truth. But to simply assign the same benefit to the state? I cannot agree with that. While we have no credible access to the behavior or political alliances to the accusers (nor should we in the cases of sexual behavior), we have plenty of reasons to criticize the Swedish state, since they are in the first place the least credible participant here. This is primarily because of its class character, its allegiances to the United States, and how blatantly it has violated its own laws to "question" Assange. I find it astonishing how little class analysis has been used here. Perhaps the intention is to isolate the case from its social and political context? I don't think that is possible.

And I disagree with your equation of "innocent until proven guilty" with the [de]ontological moral maxims of the Kantian variety. It is a basic democratic demand that deserves to be defended, especially given how often it is violated by the bourgeois media and the courts. And I don't understand your "agnosticism". It is the equivalent have having nothing to say about the case at all. If that was your intention, you have followed through poorly, since you have had plenty of venom to dish out, specifically to those who dare to say that Assange may be innocent. In my opinion it is absurd for you to condemn conclusions because you don't think there should be any at all. If I misunderstood you here, I apologize, but it's the best you'll get from me. I've grown quite sick of you, Sam_b, and this thread in general.

So it's acceptable to say "Assange is a rapist", provided that we follow it with a criticism of the handling of the case by the state? Because that is basically what you just did, there.
No, I am not. I am saying that getting a full account of what exactly happened that night may be ultimately impossible, and it is impossible to judge either party in light of the media circus and hoopla this has generated. But why is this? It is because of the manner in which the state itself handled this case, to the extent that there is one at all. The state is, in a sense, my prime suspect.

Wow you need to get a grip. Neg-repping has nothing to do with being a Moderator in the slightest.
I never meant to imply that it had anything to do with being a moderator. But your "rep power" is considerable, and you did not attempt to engage any of us in an honest debate, you simply resorted to down-repping and mudslinging. Naturally the rep power has nothing to do with being a moderator either. All I am saying that in your position, you should not to resort to such tactics indiscriminately. Not only does it damage you, but RevLeft in general. But you have, and it's correctly earned you the title of "authoritarian". Good-bye. And piss off.

Heavily-belated edit: Incorrectly labeled Kant's philosophy as "ontology", when it is really "deontology". The correction is contained in brackets.

Sam_b

21st June 2012, 17:58

And piss off.

Please don't flame on this board.

PhoenixAsh

21st June 2012, 19:12

Please don't flame on this board.

Though I agree with this....didn't you call somebody in this thread a supporter of patriarchy and call him a rape apologist?

I suggest that it is either/or.....either you apply this to yourself as well.....or you accept a quid pro quo. But it is a little dishonest as a mod to first flame somebody and then tell somebody not to flame when it is directed at you.

Hexen

21st June 2012, 19:52

Julian Assange is a rapist and here's a article I found.

http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/i-still-think-julian-assange-is-a-rapist/

Manic Impressive

21st June 2012, 20:03

Though I agree with this....didn't you call somebody in this thread a supporter of patriarchy and call him a rape apologist?

I suggest that it is either/or.....either you apply this to yourself as well.....or you accept a quid pro quo. But it is a little dishonest as a mod to first flame somebody and then tell somebody not to flame when it is directed at you.
As far as I knew a mod shouldn't be giving any warnings or infractions to people who they are involved in debate with. The correct thing to do would be to report it to another mod or admin. As Sam b is obviously emotionally compromised in this instance.

Sam_b

21st June 2012, 20:44

I'm not giving any warnings or infractions, especially in a forum outwith my constituency. Saying that you shouldn't flame is not something reserved to Moderators only.

didn't you call somebody in this thread a supporter of patriarchy and call him a rape apologist?

Most people in this thread, whether they intend to or not, are supporting patriarchy and male privilege.

wsg1991

21st June 2012, 20:45

the right question that can clear this is :
if Assange was a female and accused of a sexual assault would our position change ?

some of use are biased toward Assange , it's obvious that this not because of his Gender , but what he represents , and against whom he is battling

PhoenixAsh

21st June 2012, 20:51

I'm not giving any warnings or infractions, especially in a forum outwith my constituency. Saying that you shouldn't flame is not something reserved to Moderators only.

No, and I aree but it is a little off when you say it only after you flamed somebody and somebody flamed you.

Most people in this thread, whether they intend to or not, are supporting patriarchy and male privilege.

I do not agree. Most people here are supporting a situation where somebody is first proven to be guilty before they make a judgement....I think that most would still take this position within a gender neutral society.

PhoenixAsh

21st June 2012, 21:00

the right question that can clear this is :
if Assange was a female and accused of a sexual assault would our position change ?

I do not think that is relevant.

some of use are biased toward Assange , it's obvious that this not because of his Gender , but what he represents , and against whom he is battling

I also do not think that is relevant. I am not biased towards Assange but I am biassed agianst the Swedish state and their motivations.

I still think Assange should be able to be questioned. I am questionig the motivations of the Swedish state to reject the offer to do that in the embassy and I am questioning the refusal of the Swedish state to give guarantees concerning his possible extradiction to third countries. As I question by the way the conduct of the Swedish state throughout the whole affair.

I do not think the women are lying. But I do note that neither of the women wanted to press any charges against Assange and that they did not go to the police saying they were raped. That was the decision of the DA in Sweden to add those charges. Apparantly the DA can do that there....decide to extrapolate from a testimony and then decide what to press charges for.

I also think that what some people have put those women through....internet campaigns, hate mail, posting pictures and adresses online, threats....is apprehensible and should be punishable.

I furthermore think Assange is probably guilty of at least some of the four charges that are brought against him and that he should stand trial if there is enough evidence to support this. I also agree with people who say Assange =/ Wikileaks.

What I do dispute is saying he is guilty or a rapist before these facts are proven.

A Marxist Historian

21st June 2012, 21:03

I don't understand why he doesn't just go to Sweden. It's not like he has a warrant out for his arrest there, he's just wanted for questioning.

Apparently it's part of some conspiracy (or so his side has said) to get him to be extradited from Sweden to the USA. But the UK has extradition agreements with the USA too, and I've read that they're actually stronger than the extradition agreements the USA has with Sweden. So I don't get it.

Ah ys, the wonders of Swedish justice. Those who go to the movies can find out all about just how fair & honest the Swedish government is, and how there are no conspiracies vs. leftists there. So the boy who kicked over the hornet's nest is safe as houses from persecution there.

Actually, if you read the posting, the fix is already in. "But Swedish authorities have said the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) would intervene if Mr Assange was to face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial" in the US.

So in other words, they're planning to pack him off to the US, and if Obama's people subject him to torture and mistreatment Bradley Manning style, they will complain--to the European Court of Human Rights, which has no US jurisdiction.

The case vs. Assange for "rape" is so feeble there haven't even been any charges filed. Nor will there be any. They'll talk to Assange for fifteen minutes, drop the charges--and pack him off to CIA torture chambers.

Why don't they extradite him to the US from England? Because the British public would not permit it, the Tories are in enough trouble with the voters for their Tony Blair poodle like behavior with respect to Obama's war on Afghanistan.

Sweden, due to the artificial hysteria over these "rape" charges filed by female CIA assets, is a different story.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

21st June 2012, 21:16

If you mean that poor excuse for a blog post, then yes, I've read it. I don't believe the writer carried out the necessary research to substantiate his claim. Actually, Sweden has, in fact made deportations of alleged criminals to governments where politically motivated offenses or torture were not only possible, but clear. This was in 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery

That particular man was freely given to the Egyptian authorities, despite the fact that there was no evidence for his wrongdoing, and according to the UN Human Rights Committee, relied on nothing but "diplomatic assurances" for the prevention of possible ill treatment. This did not stop the man from being abused and tortured. See paragraph 11.4: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47975afa21.html

Given all of this, I dispute your claim, and that poster's claim, that the word of Swedish law should be trusted to this extent. In fact, their word is quite meaningless. The notion that they have "stopped" this practice isn't set in stone, because bourgeois law is entirely relative and meaningless. The law can be followed, or not followed, and misinterpreted, at any time. Is this not the ABC of the revolutionary left?

Sam B. it seems, is a remarkably naive and credulous believer in the myth of Sweden as some sort of liberal, socialistic place. He really does need to go see the "the girl who kicked over the hornet's nest" and the other movies. If Assange had, he would have been smart enough not to go near Sweden in the first place. In fact, what happened to him is straight out of one of the subplots in either the second or third book I forget which.

Given that one of the accusers has family connections to prominent figures in the Swedish security apparatus, the belief that the Swedish courts would pay any attention to Swedish law is just plain absurd. If Assange was popular in Sweden they might have to--but since his accusers are Swedish, plain ordinary Swedish chauvinism takes any possibility of Assange defending himself from anything the Swedish government wants to do to him away.

Like those American liberals who say that the US government no longer practices torture in Afghanistan 'cuz--Obama says so.

I find particularly amusing the idea that Assange could take refuge in some foreign embassy once he hits Sweden. The second he hits Swedish soil, he won't be out of Swedish custody till the day they put him on the plane for America.

-M.H.-

wsg1991

21st June 2012, 21:21

What I do dispute is saying he is guilty or a rapist before these facts are proven.
that is relevant because someone said we are supporting him because he is a guy .

can i see the list of charges again please ?
rape can be proven and many medical evidence can be gathered after the first week after the rape ( DNA samples from semen or any associated cells \ vaginal damage \ Hymen violent breaking ) . if she she accused him of rape after that , it would be his word against her words

Bronco

21st June 2012, 21:22

Why don't they extradite him to the US from England? Because the British public would not permit it, the Tories are in enough trouble with the voters for their Tony Blair poodle like behavior with respect to Obama's war on Afghanistan.

Hmm not sure about that, the government has come under a lot of criticism for how one sided the UK-US extradition treaty is but it didn't stop them extraditing Christopher Tappin, and I doubt it'll stop them doing the same to Gary McKinnon and Richard O'Dwyer

A Marxist Historian

21st June 2012, 21:23

I hope you are never falsely arrested, because if so my response will be to automatically assume your guilty. Saying the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be abandoned doesn't make you cool and progressive, it is saying society should abandon core tenants of the enlightenment and go back to the 15th century.....

Indeed.

Be it noted that one not utterly inconceivable explanation of Sam B's enthusiasm for arresting Assange is that he is a government agent himself.

Of course there is no evidence for this whatsoever, but who cares, by his own criteria?

Maybe some revolutionary tribunal should take him out and shoot him?;-)

-M.H.-

svenne

21st June 2012, 21:29

A Marxist Historian

21st June 2012, 21:35

Hmm not sure about that, the government has come under a lot of criticism for how one sided the UK-US extradition treaty is but it didn't stop them extraditing Christopher Tappin, and I doubt it'll stop them doing the same to Gary McKinnon and Richard O'Dwyer

Yes, but Assange is internationally famous, and has lots of British admirers.

I've never heard of the three guys you've mentioned, and I suspect that's true for a lot of Brits too.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

21st June 2012, 21:38

Ah, great thing that you can just write off rape charges (or, well, a "less" serious offence in the rape area) if the woman (or man) in question has some kind of CIA connections. Even better siding with the antifeminists! Next week: it was the (rich) jews who blew upp WTC, killed Trotsky and drank all my beer this weekend. Because, to be fair, it's on that level the Assange defence is at this moment.

I don't care what the charges are, rape, murder, child molestation, genocide, whatever. If the charges are from somebody with CIA connections, I consider them fraudulent until proven otherwise.

Especially when there is nothing whatsoever backing them up other than the CIA asset's assertions, which Assange has denied.

That may not be bourgeois law, but it's damn good proletarian law.

-M.H.-

wsg1991

21st June 2012, 21:40

Bronco

21st June 2012, 21:41

Yes, but Assange is internationally famous, and has lots of British admirers.

I've never heard of the three guys you've mentioned, and I suspect that's true for a lot of Brits too.

-M.H.-

Not even Gary McKinnon? He's been fighting extradition for a decade and has received a huge amount of support, the other two were just more recent cases.

I think you're overstating Assange's popularity, and how accountable the UK government is to public opinion regarding his extradition

Sam_b

21st June 2012, 21:43

Sam B. it seems, is a remarkably naive and credulous believer in the myth of Sweden as some sort of liberal, socialistic place.

That's pretty funny seeing as I posted an article talking about the bourgeois justice system. It's far easier to make an argument without reading the sources though, right?

PhoenixAsh

21st June 2012, 21:53

that is relevant because someone said we are supporting him because he is a guy .

can i see the list of charges again please ?
rape can be proven and many medical evidence can be gathered after the first week after the rape ( DNA samples from semen or any associated cells \ vaginal damage \ Hymen violent breaking ) . if she she accused him of rape after that , it would be his word against her words

As the facts go she waited a week then talked to the other woman on the phone and then waited another week to go to the police.

Tim Cornelis

21st June 2012, 21:53

Even better siding with the antifeminists! Next week: it was the (rich) jews who blew upp WTC, killed Trotsky and drank all my beer this weekend. Because, to be fair, it's on that level the Assange defence is at this moment.

Explain.

EDIT:

Incidentally, your "siding with the antifeminists" 'argument' is a guilty by association fallacy. For example, I could say, you are siding with bourgeois liberals for not believing that Jews did 9/11. It is meaningless and senseless.

PhoenixAsh

21st June 2012, 21:58

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

this the list of charges , i am trying to see how this ever qualifies as “rape”

Having sex with somebody when they are asleep is seriously questionable unless you have both talked about this before....and neither partner minds. That wasn't the case here....

The 2nd statement is also rape....

The first isn't necessarilly....but it is an additional aggravating charge....I think according to Swedish law. as is the 3rd.

A Marxist Historian

21st June 2012, 22:04

Not even Gary McKinnon? He's been fighting extradition for a decade and has received a huge amount of support, the other two were just more recent cases.

I think you're overstating Assange's popularity, and how accountable the UK government is to public opinion regarding his extradition

The name does ring a vague bell, but that's all, I regret to say.

Wikileaks is or rather wasan international phenomenon, to the point that some folk think that Wikileaks revelations had something to do with the Tunisian Revolution. With all due respect to McKinnon's I am sure very worthy cause, he is simply not on the same plane with Assange and Wikileaks. Assange is probably the most famous leftist defendant on planet earth at this point, more even than Mumia Abu-Jamal.

The Assange and Bradley Manning prosecutions have already pretty much put an end to Wikileaks. You can prefer to blame that on the way Assange handled matters if you want, but facts are facts.

Extraditing Assange could actually lose the Tories some seats at the next election. I doubt that's the case for McKinnon.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

21st June 2012, 22:06

wsg1991

21st June 2012, 22:08

Having sex with somebody when they are asleep is seriously questionable unless you have both talked about this before....and neither partner minds. That wasn't the case here....

The 2nd statement is also rape....

The first isn't necessarilly....but it is an additional aggravating charge....I think according to Swedish law. as is the 3rd.

rape
Noun:
The crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him, esp. by the threat or use of violence.
A plant (genus Brassica) of the cabbage family with bright yellow, heavily scented flowers, esp. a variety (oilseed rape) grown for its...
The stalks and skins of grapes left after winemaking, used in making vinegar.

but how can we physically prove such charges ? i do know how can actual rape be proven medically with solid unquestionable evidence

the fact she took 2 weeks to actually file a charge further worsen the situation ,
in Such events it would be very hard to know if he didn't or not , it will go down to his word against here word

BTW i don't think it can be a CIA agent , this doesn't look perfect or even professional to me , i mean there is easier ways than that

PhoenixAsh

21st June 2012, 22:12

THere is one big argument whhy the US would seek to extradite fro Sweden rather than the UK....and that is that the Swedish law permits high levels of secrecy concerning judicial proceedings and limits the suspects rights of communication with the outside world..... which would keep the whole situation outside of the public eye. This by the way to such an extend that even the US criticised the pre-trail conditions being oppressive in Sweden....the irony. This is much less the case in the UK.

PhoenixAsh

21st June 2012, 22:36

rape
Noun:
The crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him, esp. by the threat or use of violence.
A plant (genus Brassica) of the cabbage family with bright yellow, heavily scented flowers, esp. a variety (oilseed rape) grown for its...
The stalks and skins of grapes left after winemaking, used in making vinegar.

but how can we physically prove such charges ? i do know how can actual rape be proven medically with solid unquestionable evidence

the fact she took 2 weeks to actually file a charge further worsen the situation ,
in Such events it would be very hard to know if he didn't or not , it will go down to his word against here word

BTW i don't think it can be a CIA agent , this doesn't look perfect or even professional to me , i mean there is easier ways than that

In the Netherlands rape is defined as the unwanted sexual penetration of somebodies body. This includes a French Kiss in Holland.

Rottenfruit

5th July 2012, 00:14

Because he's a rapist.
Or that Sweden is noturious for extrading people for the Cia and has been heaivly cricitsed for extrading people to be torturued for Usa

Read about the Swedish goverment did to to Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery and then you understand why Assange has a reason to be afraid of Sweden

Rottenfruit

5th July 2012, 00:17

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.
Nice Ad hominem you are using, never belived and still do not belive strauss kahn was or is innocent,guilty as sin he is i think

A Marxist Historian

5th July 2012, 02:40

Nice Ad hominem you are using, never belived and still do not belive strauss kahn was or is innocent,guilty as sin he is i think

Strauss Kahn? The former head of the IMF?

He is guilty as hell, whether he actually raped that woman or whether, as some people argue, he was set up.

The IMF is directly responsible for murder, war, rape, torture, anything bad you can imagine as a result of what it has done to Third World countries. He should be locked in jail and the key thrown away, regardless of what actually happened in that hotel room.

-M.H.-

Crux

6th July 2012, 15:03

Hah how did I miss this thread? It's a shame two of the main debaters wsg91 and Hindsight 20/20 have been restricted respectively banned himself (no, really. he did) for rape apologism so I guess I'll go right at...

Ah ys, the wonders of Swedish justice. Those who go to the movies can find out all about just how fair & honest the Swedish government is, and how there are no conspiracies vs. leftists there. So the boy who kicked over the hornet's nest is safe as houses from persecution there.

Actually, if you read the posting, the fix is already in. "But Swedish authorities have said the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) would intervene if Mr Assange was to face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial" in the US.

So in other words, they're planning to pack him off to the US, and if Obama's people subject him to torture and mistreatment Bradley Manning style, they will complain--to the European Court of Human Rights, which has no US jurisdiction.

The case vs. Assange for "rape" is so feeble there haven't even been any charges filed. Nor will there be any. They'll talk to Assange for fifteen minutes, drop the charges--and pack him off to CIA torture chambers.

Why don't they extradite him to the US from England? Because the British public would not permit it, the Tories are in enough trouble with the voters for their Tony Blair poodle like behavior with respect to Obama's war on Afghanistan.

Sweden, due to the artificial hysteria over these "rape" charges filed by female CIA assets, is a different story.

-M.H.-
So you've seen the Millenium trilogy in the cinema? Congratulations.
I could tell you loads about persecution of leftists in sweden (The IB affair etc) but you know what that's entirely beside the point when you, again, start with shit like: "rape". No it's not "rape" it's rape. Also the whole CIA asset thing is on very very very shaky ground. So much in fact that it's utter hypocrisy you would bald-facedly claim this while dismissing the rape case. And of course any swede who happens to disagree with you is biased because of their nationality. Well played. Shouldn't you be off defending Michael Jackson, Roman Polanski or R Kelly? Note: The sparts defends all of them against sex crime charges. Or NAMBLA? hah.

A Marxist Historian

7th July 2012, 01:18

Hah how did I miss this thread? It's a shame two of the main debaters wsg91 and Hindsight 20/20 have been restricted respectively banned himself (no, really. he did) for rape apologism so I guess I'll go right at...

So you've seen the Millenium trilogy in the cinema? Congratulations.
I could tell you loads about persecution of leftists in sweden (The IB affair etc) but you know what that's entirely beside the point when you, again, start with shit like: "rape". No it's not "rape" it's rape. Also the whole CIA asset thing is on very very very shaky ground. So much in fact that it's utter hypocrisy you would bald-facedly claim this while dismissing the rape case. And of course any swede who happens to disagree with you is biased because of their nationality. Well played. Shouldn't you be off defending Michael Jackson, Roman Polanski or R Kelly? Note: The sparts defends all of them against sex crime charges. Or NAMBLA? hah.

Actually I haven't seen the trilogy in the cinema, except for the first part, in the original Swedish version, not the current Hollywood botch job. But I read all three books. I'm assuming the frameup by the Swedish security agencies of the male prime character on fraudulent sex charges in either book 2 or 3, I'm forgetting which right now, curiously reminiscent of what Assange is going through at the hands of the very same Swedish security agencies now is in the movies too, but I suppose I could be wrong about that.

The charges vs. Assange are based purely on the say-so of a woman with ties to not just the CIA, by way of phony Cuban "democracy" gusano organizations, but with, even more importantly, ties to the Swedish government. Doesn't she have a sister or a cousin, at this point I'm forgetting which,, who is a Swedish military figure? This was all gone over at length in the thread from last fall, with lots of indisputable evidence as to her ties provided.

And Assange denies all charges.

So unless some actual evidence other than her sayso comes up, there is no reason whatsoever to give her charges any credence. Otherwise, you're giving a free pass to the state to whomp up such phony charges against anyone at any time foolish enough to sleep with somebody before thoroughly checking out just who he or she actually is first.

-M.H.-

Rottenfruit

7th July 2012, 03:15

Crux

7th July 2012, 07:04

Actually I haven't seen the trilogy in the cinema, except for the first part, in the original Swedish version, not the current Hollywood botch job. But I read all three books. I'm assuming the frameup by the Swedish security agencies of the male prime character on fraudulent sex charges in either book 2 or 3, I'm forgetting which right now, curiously reminiscent of what Assange is going through at the hands of the very same Swedish security agencies now is in the movies too, but I suppose I could be wrong about that.

The charges vs. Assange are based purely on the say-so of a woman with ties to not just the CIA, by way of phony Cuban "democracy" gusano organizations, but with, even more importantly, ties to the Swedish government. Doesn't she have a sister or a cousin, at this point I'm forgetting which,, who is a Swedish military figure? This was all gone over at length in the thread from last fall, with lots of indisputable evidence as to her ties provided.

And Assange denies all charges.

So unless some actual evidence other than her sayso comes up, there is no reason whatsoever to give her charges any credence. Otherwise, you're giving a free pass to the state to whomp up such phony charges against anyone at any time foolish enough to sleep with somebody before thoroughly checking out just who he or she actually is first.

-M.H.-
so what you're saying is that the conspiracy defence is reminicent of a fictional novel? I agree and until anyone produces any kind of evidence for this conspiracy I am going to treat your argument with the same contempt I award others who go down the blame the victim route in rape cases. But then again haven't you said before that you essentially don't care whetever he is guilty or not?

A Marxist Historian

7th July 2012, 08:01

so what you're saying is that the conspiracy defence is reminicent of a fictional novel? I agree and until anyone produces any kind of evidence for this conspiracy I am going to treat your argument with the same contempt I award others who go down the blame the victim route in rape cases. But then again haven't you said before that you essentially don't care whetever he is guilty or not?

I think you must have confused me with somebody else. If he actually raped her, then that would be indefensible whoever she is. And whether the behavior she alleges is properly describable as "rape" is actually totally irrelevant, as he denies having done what she claims he did. And there is no evidence whatsoever other than her sayso that he did anything for which he deserves prosecution by anybody's standards, including those of Swedish law.

As for the book, I would say that this is a case of life imitating art, except for the fact that the widow of the author, who was a member of the Swedish USec by the way, has publicly stated that absolutely everything described in the books actually has happened in Sweden at one time or another.

So what is happening is that the Swedish security officials are pulling a trick on Assange that they have pulled before on somebody else.

As for calling this a "conspiracy theory," that the CIA and its collaborators abroad are out to get Assange and Wikileaks is not a "conspiracy theory," it's a well known and thoroughly established conspiracy fact, which American public authorities barely bother to deny.

I note that you do not dispute the equally well-known fact of the ties of the accusers to the Swedish military, you merely attempt to downplay, without denying, the also established fact that they have ties to the CIA by way of the gusano anti-Cuban "democracy" groups.

-M.H.-

Crux

7th July 2012, 13:04

A Marxist Historian

7th July 2012, 20:52

First off, you keep doing the "rape" quotations thing. Why? Secondly if he didn't deny it we probably would not be having this conversation. Thirdly yes just the other year there was a scandal about the SÄPO collaborating with the CIA in documenting swedish citizens. If you have any proof in this direction re Assange (who last I heard was talking about a feminist conspiracy not CIA) I'm all ears. And finally, that the powers that be are after Assange is not an argument. I think they're quite capable of taking advantage of real rape charges, don't you?

Yes, he does deny it, and we are nonetheless having this conversation. The contradiction therein is yours.

I put "rape" in quotes as the charges are borderline. Most recent version I have heard is that the woman in question is not even at this point saying that she forbade him to have sex without a condom, but rather that she never gave him formal consent, and just went along 'cuz she was too sleepy to argue. But that is all really besides the point, as Assange denies this.

Where is Assange talking about a "feminist conspiracy"? Proof please. I have seen comments from him adverse to the Swedish feminists who want to prosecute him, which is understandable, but no claims of some sort of dark secret "conspiracy" CIA and SAPO style.

There has been plenty of stuff posted here verifying that the accusers are tied to the CIA and the Swedish government. That there's an actual conspiracy involved, with coordination from above, is the most likely situation, but if the women in question, like good Swedish patriots, made this all up on their own, same difference. Who knows?

The point is that, given who they are and given who Assange is, to give any credence to their charges without any solid evidence to back them up is--scabbing.

Here in the United States, the prime defenders of Bradley Manning and Assange are the Women in Black, the only all-female and more or less feminist radical organization that currently exists in America.

It looks as if he will actually be deported to Sweden at this point. My prediction is a fifteen minute hearing behind closed doors, the dropping of the more than dubious charges, and Assange immediately packed off to the USA to the same prison Bradley Manning is currently occupying.

-M.H.-

Skyhilist

7th July 2012, 21:58

Isn't it a tad hard to prove him innocent, since he refuses to go to Sweden? I think it's pretty obvious Assange's not entirely innocent in this case, and that he knows he'll be sentenced if he comes here.

Well look at it this way. If there is a conspiracy against him (which I think there is), then he might be found wrongly guilty in Sweden anyways if he's not. I mean who knows what kind of shady back door deals they have with the USA or possibly other countries to try to arrange his arrest. I don't blame him for fleeing when it sounds to me like the situation he'd have back there wouldn't be much better than a kangaroo court system.

Igor

7th July 2012, 23:05

Nice Ad hominem you are using, never belived and still do not belive strauss kahn was or is innocent,guilty as sin he is i think

That wasn't an ad hominem, though. People, if you want to rail on about fallacies (please don't do this though), look up their bloody meaning. Ad hominem means an attack against someone's persona or attributes in order to debunk their point. None of this is going on in the Sam_b quote.

Though seriously, bringing up fallacies should be a fallacy or something.

Rottenfruit

7th July 2012, 23:09

That wasn't an ad hominem, though. People, if you want to rail on about fallacies (please don't do this though), look up their bloody meaning. Ad hominem means an attack against someone's persona or attributes in order to debunk their point. None of this is going on in the Sam_b quote.

Though seriously, bringing up fallacies should be a fallacy or something.

My point is simple the reason, Read about Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Alzery and thats why Assange has a real reason to be afraid of Swden, I agree with a trial againt Assange for rape but not in Sweden due to Swden noturios history of extradling people for the cia to be tortured like the cases of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Alzery

Hold the trial in uk and if he´s found gulity then he should be put in prison in the uk or anywhere else in westrten europe expect Sweden

Assange asked the swedish goverment for a guranted he would not extriaited if found guilty, SWEDEN HAS DENIED THAT REQUEST see http://www.thelocal.se/41636/20120625/

Clearly Sweden has too much bias and the risk of human rights violations is too high to allow this case to be tried in Sweden and it must be done somewhere else

Igor

7th July 2012, 23:19

My point is simple the reason, Read about Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Alzery and thats why Assange has a real reason to be afraid of Swden, I agree with a trial againt Assange for rape but not in Sweden due to Swden noturios history of extradling people for the cia to be tortured like the cases of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Alzery

Hold the trial in uk and if he´s found gulity then he should be put in prison in the uk or anywhere else in westrten europe expect Sweden

He committed the crime in Sweden, though, if he did (he probably did, but making the judgement isn't really up to me so uh). There's absolutely no reason for UK courts to try an Australian citizens for crimes committed in Sweden.

But honestly, I can't follow at all the logic where Sweden is some kind of country that hands over everyone to the USA while apparently, rest of Europe doesn't. They do, and the UK does. It's legal for UK to extradite UK citizens to USA for crimes that aren't even crimes in UK. They sure as all hell could extradite Assange, they don't need Sweden for that. Sweden, that isn't even a bloody NATO country unlike most of Europe, including UK.

edit regarding the link: that's someone from the Justice department saying that Sweden couldn't legally give such a guarantee. Fair enough, I don't know Swedish law too well, but it's still more like to be case of legal nitpicking than Sweden conspiring to ship the guy.

Crux

7th July 2012, 23:45

Yes, he does deny it, and we are nonetheless having this conversation. The contradiction therein is yours.[quote]
Not at all. A recent study among college students in the US showed that I think it was as many as 1:20 of men questioned admitted to having comitted rape so long as the word "rape" was not used. So Assange may well, like you, believe what he did was not rape.

[QUOTE]I put "rape" in quotes as the charges are borderline. Most recent version I have heard is that the woman in question is not even at this point saying that she forbade him to have sex without a condom, but rather that she never gave him formal consent, and just went along 'cuz she was too sleepy to argue. But that is all really besides the point, as Assange denies this.
Ah no it's not beside the point. It's borderline rape apologism. Rape cases are, no matter what your media informed view would have you believe, rarely very clear cut.

Where is Assange talking about a "feminist conspiracy"? Proof please. I have seen comments from him adverse to the Swedish feminists who want to prosecute him, which is understandable, but no claims of some sort of dark secret "conspiracy" CIA and SAPO style.
My connection is very on and off at the moment so I'll be lucky if I can post this at all, but it was in the Australian. He also compared Sweden to Saudi Arabia, saying it was the "feminist Saudi Arabia" basically. (http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20australian%20julian%20assange%20saudi%20ar abia%20sweden&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CGAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fin-depth%2Fwikileaks%2Fwikileaks-founder-baffled-by-sex-assault-claims%2Fstory-fn775xjq-1225976459286&ei=hrf4T8-rF5T44QSL1tzlBg&usg=AFQjCNFuEWsreZ5EV-tpfkpzb2ynuRFBcA&cad=rja) And you don't think he should be prosecuted? Good to see you come clean on this "not really rape" "should not be prosecuted" business. Which is again, before you say it, not at all beside the point. I'll explain why in a bit.

There has been plenty of stuff posted here verifying that the accusers are tied to the CIA and the Swedish government. That there's an actual conspiracy involved, with coordination from above, is the most likely situation, but if the women in question, like good Swedish patriots, made this all up on their own, same difference. Who knows?
No it has not. The only thing that i have seen verified is that one (1) of the defendants and possible victims have been to Cuba. Like many other youth politicians (she is a Socialdemocrat) she was there under the guise of an opposition group. And like the vast majority of such groups that group has, one way or the other, ties to the CIA. Are you suggesting that anyione who has visited opposition groups , of which most, certainly the liberal and "socialdemocratic" ones, have ties to the CIA are basically a CIA asset? To me it seems you've thrown your rationality out the window in favour of wishful thinking and conspiracy theorist "logic". And here you go directly into blame the victim territory. yeah they probably made the rape charges up, it is not at all as if they have had their identites and persons outed all over the internet and suffered the usual harassment awarded to people who accuse popular persons of rape, up to and including direct death threats.

The point is that, given who they are and given who Assange is, to give any credence to their charges without any solid evidence to back them up is--scabbing.
It is now so painfully obvious that you've thrown all semblance of being able to rationally asses this out of the window. And you call yourself a marxist.

Here in the United States, the prime defenders of Bradley Manning and Assange are the Women in Black, the only all-female and more or less feminist radical organization that currently exists in America.

Says you. See here's another issue. You are unable to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. First off Manning is not accused of rape. Second it is quite possible for Assange to have done great thing's with wikileaks and still rape somebody. Those two are not directly related. Furthermore supposing for a second it's not all some big conspiracy, do you really think the Powers That Be would not be all over this anyway? Are you really that naive?

It looks as if he will actually be deported to Sweden at this point. My prediction is a fifteen minute hearing behind closed doors, the dropping of the more than dubious charges, and Assange immediately packed off to the USA to the same prison Bradley Manning is currently occupying.
My prediction is that deporting Assange to the U.S will be politically very difficult for the swedish government and were they to attempt to do so it would not just provoke a response from society in general but also from within the ranks of the government, certainly the governmental parties and their youth organizations. It will not be possible for them to do so in secret. But glad to see how much you care about potential rape victims. Thanks for putting it all out in the open.

mew

8th July 2012, 03:39

good old rape apologism

MarxSchmarx

8th July 2012, 04:13

Crux

8th July 2012, 05:10

MarxSchmarx

8th July 2012, 05:27

Well, his lawyer would probably know whether he is guilty or not.

You'd be surprised. I've known lawyers (in the british system, not sure if it works similarly in Sweden) who refuse to ask about their clients guilt. Perhaps someone more familiar with the law like TC can provide more insight, but these people take the presumption of innocence very seriously, are of the attitude that unless they are convinced by the other side, they have no reason to believe their client is guilty without ever asking the client. Unless a client confesses in court, they've told me its counterproductive and destructive to the client's interests they are sworn to uphold to persue it further. From what I understand, it's a "frame of mind" thing where it helps them from being sympathetic to the prosecutions case. Having said that, I have no idea if those are the dynamics operating in Assange's case, but I wouldn't be surprised if they never really asked him "come on, did you do this?".

Sea

8th July 2012, 05:53

What's up with this idea that someone should be considered innocent or guilty by default?

Althusser

8th July 2012, 07:44

Not believing the woman? Classy. Patriarchy alive and well on the left unfortunately. No doubt you stood behind Strauss-Kahn as well.

Be realistic here... people will claim they were raped for money. It's happened in the past and will continue to happen. Automatically believing the woman, especially in an obvious frame-up case like this, is ridiculous.

LoverOfDiversity

8th July 2012, 08:07

Hey guys, I'm new to this forum and would just like to say hello first off :)

I think Julian Assange is great!

Igor

8th July 2012, 19:51

think Julian Assange is great!

Maybe. I don't think anyone here would think his work with Wikileaks isn't great, that doesn't mean the guy isn't a total douchebag and possibly a rapist. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

Crux

8th July 2012, 20:08

Be realistic here... people will claim they were raped for money. It's happened in the past and will continue to happen. Automatically believing the woman, especially in an obvious frame-up case like this, is ridiculous.
how is that more realistic? False rape charges are very uncommon. Would you be saying the same if this had been an assault trial? Also, there is no "obvious frame up", Assange may well be guilty and based on that The Australian interview I choose to believe he is guilty. Maybe it's just my bias against people who talk about "revealing cashmere sweaters" when asked about rape charges. Funny how his version just says that they probably lied because they became jealous (of each other) and nothing about your "obvious frame up". Or is this the frame up you had in mind?

pastradamus

10th July 2012, 18:04

how is that more realistic? False rape charges are very uncommon.

Not really. I've done jury service here in Ireland and one of the cases we were selected for was a rape case. Basically without going into it too much I was one of only 3 males on the jury team and every one of us without batting an eyelid knew this woman was telling lies. After being cross-examined we knew 100% that her case was complete lies. Basically the guy dated her sister in the past and they had a big falling out. She took him to court on rape charges despite the guy having over 15 witnesses (many of whom didnt know him) who saw him in the pub watching a football match the time it was supposed to have happened. It didn't matter to her either way as the state was covering all her legal expenses. A little bit irrelevant in this particular circumstance I know but Im just making the point that its not unheard of and does happen.

Would you be saying the same if this had been an assault trial? Also, there is no "obvious frame up", Assange may well be guilty and based on that The Australian interview I choose to believe he is guilty.

Im not a particular fan of Assange. I find him really sleezy and condecending in his nature. I agree that this is not an "obvious frame up". Why would the CIA be involved if the United States are looking for his extradition? Its obvious they are not involved. I dont know if he is guilty or innocent, nobody does and it comes down to having a trial on this and putting the facts to the fore. I wouldnt be surprised either way. The process of taking a rape allegation to court is notoriously hard for the victim but also for the accused (if he is innocent). Its one of the most difficult things to prove legally as it often just comes down to who says what more convincingly.

The one thing i've noticed following the whole thing is just how much the Swedish justice system have made complete idiots of themselves.

I mean just look at the timeline of events and you'll notice serious mistakes, delays and some borderline legal errors that may come back to bite them in the ass:

2010

August 11 - Assange arrives in Stockholm for a speaking trip where it was arranged for him to stay at the apartment of ''Miss A''.

August 14 - Assange and ''Miss A'' attend a seminar by the Social Democrats' Brotherhood Movement, at which the Australian is the key speaker. The two reportedly have sex that night.

August 17 - Assange reportedly has sex with ''Miss W'', a woman he met at the seminar on August 14.

Between August 17 and 20 - The two women are said to have shared concerns over their sexual encounters with Assange.

August 20 - The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Assange for two separate allegations - one of rape and one of molestation. August 21 - The arrest warrant is withdrawn but the molestation charge remains.
August 31 - Assange is questioned by police in Stockholm and formally told of the allegations against him which he denies.
September 1 - Director of Prosecutions Marianne Ny says she is reopening the rape investigation against Assange.
October 18 - The WikiLeaks founder is denied residency in Sweden with no reason given.
November 18 - Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain the WikiLeaks founder for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
November 20 - An international arrest warrant for Assange is issued by Swedish police via Interpol.
November 30 - Interpol issues a ''red notice'' for Assange.
December 8 - Assange presents himself to London police and appears at an extradition hearing where he is remanded in custody.
December 14 - The world media and protesters besiege the road outside City of Westminster Magistrates' Court where Assange is appearing on an extradition warrant.
He is granted conditional bail but must provide a security of £200,000 to the court and guarantee two sureties, each of £20,000.
The court's decision is welcomed by high profile supporters Jemima Khan, Tariq Ali and John Pilger.
Two hours later, the Swedish authorities challenge the decision to grant bail and the Australian is kept behind bars until a more senior judge can hear the appeal.
December 16 - Assange is granted conditional bail at the High Court in London after his supporters pay £240,000 in cash and sureties.
In court, the judge rules that supporters and journalists should not use the micro-blogging site Twitter to give instant coverage.
Assange makes a statement on the court steps whilst his mother Christine says she is ''very, very happy'' with the decision.
December 17 - Assange claims the investigation in to him is illegal, saying he has not been provided with any evidence relating to the allegations.
2011
January 11 - Assange appears at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in preperation for a two-day full extradition hearing.
February 7 - The WikiLeaks founder appears at the first day of the extradition hearing at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court, where the Swedish prosecutor is accused of having a ''biased view'' against men.
Swedish officials confirm they wish to prosecute, rather than just question Assange.
February 8 - During the second day of the hearing, the court is told that a hoard of secret text messages could hold the key to finally clearing Assange's name.
Former Swedish prosecutor, Sven-Erik Alhem, gives a wandering witness testimony with sharp exchanges between the defence and prosecution.
February 11 - Assange appears at the final day of the hearing where the case is adjourned to February 24.
His lawyers claim extradition would breach his human rights and fear he could ultimately be taken against his will to the United States and executed.
February 24 - District Judge Howard Riddle rules that Assange should be extradited.
June 17 - Supporters of the Wikileaks founder claim CCTV cameras have been installed around his temporary home.
July 12 - Assange launches appeal to block his extradition, with his lawyers telling the Court of Appeal that a European Arrest Warrant was "misleading in the extreme" and based on allegations which would not constitute a crime in the UK.
July 14 - Clare Montgomery, representing the Swedish authorities, tells a judge that two women who accused Assange of sexual assault did not freely consent to his advances but felt "trapped" into "submitting to his will".
November 2 - Assange loses his High Court appeal against extradition, leaving one last option of taking case to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it raises issues of public importance.
December 5 - Assange wins permission to challenge whether Swedish authorities had the authority to issue European arrest warrants.
2012
Feb 1 - Assange begins challenge at Supreme Court to block his extradition.
May 30 -Assange loses Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden.
June 19 - Assange applies for political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

I hope he is actually innocent for their sake. If Assange did rape those women then he can get off the hook from the mistakes made here, much to the disapointment for justice and those women.

Crux

12th July 2012, 01:42

Not really. I've done jury service here in Ireland and one of the cases we were selected for was a rape case. Basically without going into it too much I was one of only 3 males on the jury team and every one of us without batting an eyelid knew this woman was telling lies. After being cross-examined we knew 100% that her case was complete lies. Basically the guy dated her sister in the past and they had a big falling out. She took him to court on rape charges despite the guy having over 15 witnesses (many of whom didnt know him) who saw him in the pub watching a football match the time it was supposed to have happened. It didn't matter to her either way as the state was covering all her legal expenses. A little bit irrelevant in this particular circumstance I know but Im just making the point that its not unheard of and does happen.

Im not a particular fan of Assange. I find him really sleezy and condecending in his nature. I agree that this is not an "obvious frame up". Why would the CIA be involved if the United States are looking for his extradition? Its obvious they are not involved. I dont know if he is guilty or innocent, nobody does and it comes down to having a trial on this and putting the facts to the fore. I wouldnt be surprised either way. The process of taking a rape allegation to court is notoriously hard for the victim but also for the accused (if he is innocent). Its one of the most difficult things to prove legally as it often just comes down to who says what more convincingly.

The one thing i've noticed following the whole thing is just how much the Swedish justice system have made complete idiots of themselves.

I mean just look at the timeline of events and you'll notice serious mistakes, delays and some borderline legal errors that may come back to bite them in the ass:

2010

August 11 - Assange arrives in Stockholm for a speaking trip where it was arranged for him to stay at the apartment of ''Miss A''.

August 14 - Assange and ''Miss A'' attend a seminar by the Social Democrats' Brotherhood Movement, at which the Australian is the key speaker. The two reportedly have sex that night.

August 17 - Assange reportedly has sex with ''Miss W'', a woman he met at the seminar on August 14.

Between August 17 and 20 - The two women are said to have shared concerns over their sexual encounters with Assange.

August 20 - The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Assange for two separate allegations - one of rape and one of molestation. August 21 - The arrest warrant is withdrawn but the molestation charge remains.
August 31 - Assange is questioned by police in Stockholm and formally told of the allegations against him which he denies.
September 1 - Director of Prosecutions Marianne Ny says she is reopening the rape investigation against Assange.
October 18 - The WikiLeaks founder is denied residency in Sweden with no reason given.
November 18 - Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain the WikiLeaks founder for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
November 20 - An international arrest warrant for Assange is issued by Swedish police via Interpol.
November 30 - Interpol issues a ''red notice'' for Assange.
December 8 - Assange presents himself to London police and appears at an extradition hearing where he is remanded in custody.
December 14 - The world media and protesters besiege the road outside City of Westminster Magistrates' Court where Assange is appearing on an extradition warrant.
He is granted conditional bail but must provide a security of £200,000 to the court and guarantee two sureties, each of £20,000.
The court's decision is welcomed by high profile supporters Jemima Khan, Tariq Ali and John Pilger.
Two hours later, the Swedish authorities challenge the decision to grant bail and the Australian is kept behind bars until a more senior judge can hear the appeal.
December 16 - Assange is granted conditional bail at the High Court in London after his supporters pay £240,000 in cash and sureties.
In court, the judge rules that supporters and journalists should not use the micro-blogging site Twitter to give instant coverage.
Assange makes a statement on the court steps whilst his mother Christine says she is ''very, very happy'' with the decision.
December 17 - Assange claims the investigation in to him is illegal, saying he has not been provided with any evidence relating to the allegations.
2011
January 11 - Assange appears at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in preperation for a two-day full extradition hearing.
February 7 - The WikiLeaks founder appears at the first day of the extradition hearing at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court, where the Swedish prosecutor is accused of having a ''biased view'' against men.
Swedish officials confirm they wish to prosecute, rather than just question Assange.
February 8 - During the second day of the hearing, the court is told that a hoard of secret text messages could hold the key to finally clearing Assange's name.
Former Swedish prosecutor, Sven-Erik Alhem, gives a wandering witness testimony with sharp exchanges between the defence and prosecution.
February 11 - Assange appears at the final day of the hearing where the case is adjourned to February 24.
His lawyers claim extradition would breach his human rights and fear he could ultimately be taken against his will to the United States and executed.
February 24 - District Judge Howard Riddle rules that Assange should be extradited.
June 17 - Supporters of the Wikileaks founder claim CCTV cameras have been installed around his temporary home.
July 12 - Assange launches appeal to block his extradition, with his lawyers telling the Court of Appeal that a European Arrest Warrant was "misleading in the extreme" and based on allegations which would not constitute a crime in the UK.
July 14 - Clare Montgomery, representing the Swedish authorities, tells a judge that two women who accused Assange of sexual assault did not freely consent to his advances but felt "trapped" into "submitting to his will".
November 2 - Assange loses his High Court appeal against extradition, leaving one last option of taking case to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it raises issues of public importance.
December 5 - Assange wins permission to challenge whether Swedish authorities had the authority to issue European arrest warrants.
2012
Feb 1 - Assange begins challenge at Supreme Court to block his extradition.
May 30 -Assange loses Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden.
June 19 - Assange applies for political asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

I hope he is actually innocent for their sake. If Assange did rape those women then he can get off the hook from the mistakes made here, much to the disappointment for justice and those women.
That's a straw man. Your anecdotal one case does not contradict what I said, I didn't say it never happens, I just said it is very rare. I suppose I could go dig up some statistics, as far as I remember for sweden it's less than 1% of cases. Might've been 2%. So yeah, it happens but it doesn't happen even remotly as often as some in this thread has implied. And it certainly isn't a viable argument.

Personally I don't buy the argument that Sweden would be more likely to extradite Assange to the U.S than well any other EU country, so suppose that is not the reason why he does not want to be questioned by the Swedish police what other possible reason could he have?

A Marxist Historian

13th July 2012, 19:25

I believe there is a clause in all extradition treaties that says a person cannot be extradited and then tried for a crime other than the one the extradition is requested for. So for example if Saudi Arabia demands my extradition for, say, dumping toxic waste, I can't subsequently be tried also for blasphemy against Mohammed or something. That's why I'm not really sure I understand why, if he is acquitted in Sweden, he will be extradited to America on an unrelated charge. Presumably the argument is that he will be extradited not only to sweden but also to America as a consequence of his extradition to Sweden and nothing else. But then why won't the US just demand his extradition directly from Britain rather than go through Sweden? It just doesn't make sense to me. But yeah, each legal case is just so different from every other one it is impossible to generalize, but Assange's lawyers I guess know more about this.

In this era of the "war on terror," it really doesn't matter how the extradition treaties read. Assange is accused by the US government of "helping terrorism" through Wikileaks exposures, especially of US atrocities in Iraq. Governments around the world are disregarding all laws and constitutions and treaties to carry out the "war on terror."

The Swedes will put him on a plane to the USA first and let his lawyers sue afterwards. Once he is in American custody, the lawyers can complain all they want, it won't matter. Popular annoyance will blow over quickly, as Assange is unpopular in Sweden.

It would be politically very difficult to extradite Assange from Britain to the USA at this point. In Sweden, where you have a Swedish patriotic rallying behind the charges of fairly prominent citizens, and where you don't have nearly as much popular outrage against government misdeeds around the Afghanistan war and the "war on terror," it would be much easier politically.

Forgive my quotation marks, but that really strikes me as "rape", not "borderline rape".

What is not forgivable is your three-dotting out of a large part of the quote from my posting, to distort it to make me sound like a rape apologist.

-M.H.-

Ostrinski

13th July 2012, 19:39

So is it looking like he will be granted asylum or no

A Marxist Historian

14th July 2012, 21:43

So is it looking like he will be granted asylum or no

Yes, that's his best shot, the Ecuadorans. However, he is in England at the Ecuador embassy, and Ecuador is a small and weak country, easy for imperialists to bully, which has no fundamental reason to give him asylum other than basic human decency. And the Ecuadoran government is a bit on the leftish side as bourgeois governments go, but it's a bourgeois government. So my guess is that this won't work.

-M.H.-

ckaihatsu

30th July 2012, 07:30

Australian TV program exposes Assange frame-up

By Mike Head
28 July 2012

“Four Corners”, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program, this week broadcast what amounted to an exposé of the frame-up of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Assange remains inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, seeking political asylum from the threat of being removed to Sweden, which would in turn facilitate extradition to the US.

The program provided a valuable service by simply piecing together what happened in the three crucial weeks after Assange arrived in Sweden in mid-August 2010.

http://wsws.org/articles/2012/jul2012/assa-j28.shtml

Crux

31st July 2012, 04:14

Crux

31st July 2012, 04:23

I think this article is more interesting:http://jezebel.com/5929544/rapists-explain-themselves-on-reddit-and-we-should-listen (http://www.anonym.to/?http://jezebel.com/5929544/rapists-explain-themselves-on-reddit-and-we-should-listen)

Because I am fully willing to believe that Assange, and many others, does not think that, assuming for a moment he is actually guitly of the charges, that he's committed rape. Many rapists don't. I find it quite off putting to see supposed leftists trying to belittle or make apologia for the actual charges calling them "rape" with quotations or calling them "vague".

ckaihatsu

31st July 2012, 04:36

Well, just for the record, then, I fully support the stance contained within the article at post #124.

A Marxist Historian

31st July 2012, 19:46

"The only conclusion one can draw is that Assange was either deliberately set-up, or that the women later came under significant pressure to testify against him. The current allegations by the two women against Assange are unclear."
Probably when you're looking to prove something you already "know" rather than actually prove something. As far as i can see this article add's nothing new, it's the same old "oh I don't think she acted like a rape victim" completely ignorant of how rape works in reality accompanied by "oh look the powers that be are taking advantage of this clearly prove they set up Assange". In fact it doesn't in any way shape or form prove that because it is based on the entirely bogus assumption that they would not take advantage of genuine charges.

It's true, the Four Corners piece provides nothing new. It does put many of the well known facts about this outrageous frameup into a useful package.

As others have pointed out long ago on this thread, what rape charges? No charges have been filed, for rape or anything else! After two years!

I mean, here we have a situation where they're trying to drag him to Sweden to "interview" him (under lock and key), and the Swedes have repeatedly refused to interview him off Swedish soil!

How can this possibly be anything other than a transparent attempt by the Swedes to get their hands on him? And how can they possibly have any other intentions than to turn him over to America? Nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.

And why can't Majakovskij see this obvious fact? Because he is a left Swedish Social Democrat, who, since Assange is unpopular in Sweden, finds it convenient, liike a good social patriot, to support Swedish citizens maing accusations, no matter how dubious, and the coercive apparatus of the Swedish state, vs. trouble making foreigners.

-M.H.-

Lucretia

31st July 2012, 19:55

It's true, the Four Corners piece provides nothing new. It does put many of the well known facts about this outrageous frameup into a useful package.

As others have pointed out long ago on this thread, what rape charges? No charges have been filed, for rape or anything else! After two years!

I mean, here we have a situation where they're trying to drag him to Sweden to "interview" him (under lock and key), and the Swedes have repeatedly refused to interview him off Swedish soil!

How can this possibly be anything other than a transparent attempt by the Swedes to get their hands on him? And how can they possibly have any other intentions than to turn him over to America? Nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.

And why can't Majakovskij see this obvious fact? Because he is a left Swedish Social Democrat, who, since Assange is unpopular in Sweden, finds it convenient, liike a good social patriot, to support Swedish citizens maing accusations, no matter how dubious, and the coercive apparatus of the Swedish state, vs. trouble making foreigners.

-M.H.-

I agree with this 100%. At this point, so long after the original accusations surfaced, it's unfathomable how some people can believe this is anything other than an attempt by the Swedish government to do the bidding of the US.

Crux

2nd August 2012, 21:39

It's true, the Four Corners piece provides nothing new. It does put many of the well known facts about this outrageous frameup into a useful package.

As others have pointed out long ago on this thread, what rape charges? No charges have been filed, for rape or anything else! After two years!

I mean, here we have a situation where they're trying to drag him to Sweden to "interview" him (under lock and key), and the Swedes have repeatedly refused to interview him off Swedish soil!

How can this possibly be anything other than a transparent attempt by the Swedes to get their hands on him? And how can they possibly have any other intentions than to turn him over to America? Nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.

And why can't Majakovskij see this obvious fact? Because he is a left Swedish Social Democrat, who, since Assange is unpopular in Sweden, finds it convenient, liike a good social patriot, to support Swedish citizens maing accusations, no matter how dubious, and the coercive apparatus of the Swedish state, vs. trouble making foreigners.

-M.H.-
And I've outlined several times why and you give me these pathetic ad hominems. Yeah playing quick and loose with terms like "social democrat" sure solidifies your supposed marxist credentials. So I suppose others that unlike you don't think "it's not real rape because hey Assange is cool yeah" are...I don't know? What is your preferred ad hominem for non-swedes who disagree with you? Oh and don't you have to write up a defence of NAMBLA or something, spart? What's it with you and defending alleged rapists in high publicity rape trials? See unlike you I don't assume women always lie in rape trials, AMH. That's probably why you're confused.

A Marxist Historian

3rd August 2012, 02:05

And I've outlined several times why and you give me these pathetic ad hominems. Yeah playing quick and loose with terms like "social democrat" sure solidifies your supposed marxist credentials. So I suppose others that unlike you don't think "it's not real rape because hey Assange is cool yeah" are...I don't know? What is your preferred ad hominem for non-swedes who disagree with you? Oh and don't you have to write up a defence of NAMBLA or something, spart? What's it with you and defending alleged rapists in high publicity rape trials? See unlike you I don't assume women always lie in rape trials, AMH. That's probably why you're confused.

Ad hominems? Your whole post is one long ad hominem to cloud the issue. You can't answer the basic facts here, and you never have to the best of my recollection, in this thread or the earlier one. I repeat:

"As others have pointed out long ago on this thread, what rape charges? No charges have been filed, for rape or anything else! After two years!

I mean, here we have a situation where they're trying to drag him to Sweden to "interview" him (under lock and key), and the Swedes have repeatedly refused to interview him off Swedish soil!

How can this possibly be anything other than a transparent attempt by the Swedes to get their hands on him? And how can they possibly have any other intentions than to turn him over to America? Nothing else makes any sense whatsoever."

You can't answer that, you haven't answered that before when others have pointed that out, and you are ducking the issue and trying to throw up a smokescreen here again now.

Instead you complain about "ad hominems," after I've shown, not personally at all really, that your position is that of a Swedish left social democrat. I nailed you for what you are, and you are squirming. Since you can't answer me, you're trying to change the subject and confuse the issue like a lawyer with a bad case trying to confuse the jury and prevent them from thinking.

-M.H.-

Lucretia

3rd August 2012, 02:35

To be fair I think we should recognize that AMH's post did contain a couple of ad homs, but that does not detract from the fact that his post also had a substantive argument. The ad homs were kind of supplementary things AMH threw in as speculation regarding why Majakovskij refused to resign himself to the obvious implications of the facts. Majakovskij's response, on the other hand, was pure ad hominem.

Crux

3rd August 2012, 02:43

Lucretia

3rd August 2012, 02:50

Well, actually it wasn't. Let me make it super simple for you: Unlike you I don't assume they are lying. Unlike you I don't consider the fact that the U.S is taking advantage of this as proof of anything. And unlike you I don't consider the accusations are vague or "not really rape even if true" nor do I stoop to such lows as inferring that they did not "act enough as rape victims".

The question really boils down to whether the accusations were made in good faith, not whether they were "true" -- which is a related but distinct question, since if the accusations are not being made in good faith, it's almost certain that the accusations are false attempts at a frame up. Now if the accusations were made in good faith, what reason would the Swedish authorities have to refuse to interview Assange abroad? Certainly, if they were earnestly investigating a potential criminal offense, such an interview would help them strengthen their case, potentially to the point of being able to issue a warrant for his arrest on grounds that he is charged with a crime. Not sure about the specifics of extradition/international law on this, but I'm pretty confident in saying that a warrant backed by actual charges would have a different precedence than an extradition request for questioning. That's the issue that I think AMH wants you to respond to with substance, not just bile.

Your consistent habit of painting your detractors on this issue as stridently anti-woman and pro-rape just comes across as desperate, narrow minded, and even sort of paranoid. At the very least it is offensive and is not conduct becoming of an administrator or moderator of the forum.

Crux

3rd August 2012, 07:47

Lucretia

3rd August 2012, 08:48

Are you saying AMH has not gone on using "rape" as his descriptive term (indeed if memory serves you too 2 years ago had problems accepting there would indeed be anything criminal about what Assange is accused of)?
Is it not true that the WSWs account and others have gone about going for the "did not act as if she had been raped" angle? Do I need to explain why that is extremely ignorant?

The question asked was how could it possibly be anything other than a shady conspiracy. An amazing question because it shows, as AMH has shown time and time again, that he either takes their lying for granted or does not really care whether Assange has committed any rape, he keeps flipping back and forth on that point. I'm not prepared to do that and I don't think that has anything to do with my nationality.

Are you going to answer the question that I posed or not (NOT the question you think AMH posed, because we obviously disagree on what he was asking)? Maybe I didn't make it clear, but that was the primary purpose of my post, not to initiate a "Nuh uh! YOU started it!" colloquy. Why would the Swedish authorities refuse to question Assange unless he returned to Sweden, if not for the fact that their purpose for getting him to return isn't to proceed with a criminal case relating to sexual conduct? I'm actually waiting to hear what your theory might be, because I honestly can't come up with one that makes any sense.

Crux

3rd August 2012, 10:15

MEGAMANTROTSKY

3rd August 2012, 13:33

Whereas I think the question is why doesn't he just go to Sweden if he's so innocent? Why stall for as long as he has? It's not as if the UK is somehow more resistant to U.S imperialism or have less extradition treaties with the U.S. But uh, we've been over this on, literally page 1 of this thread.
I wasn't intending on returning, but oh well. The answer to that question, in my opinion, was answered well here (http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#WUKJA). In fact, I think I provided this same link in my first post on this thread. The website's explanation makes sense to me, though I admit it's far from fully satisfying.

You're coming dangerously close to replicating the exchange you two had in the "Assange dirtbag" thread. Please respond to Lucretia directly instead of answering a question with a question. We're not at a Socratic seminar.

Crux

3rd August 2012, 16:57

I wasn't intending on returning, but oh well. The answer to that question, in my opinion, was answered well here (http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#WUKJA). In fact, I think I provided this same link in my first post on this thread. The website's explanation makes sense to me, though I admit it's far from fully satisfying.

You're coming dangerously close to replicating the exchange you two had in the "Assange dirtbag" thread. Please respond to Lucretia directly instead of answering a question with a question. We're not at a Socratic seminar.
Funny source you have there, that starts off with:
29 February 2012: Stratfor e-mails have revealed that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011 (http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/375123_fw-ct-assange-manning-link-not-key-to-wikileaks-case-.html). This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order.

My bold.

Yes I read the rest, but they kind of shoot down their own, and your, argument right there in the first paragraph. And then they go on to talk about the "swedish media climate"...call me a what ever you want but I do confess to being irked by frequent and outright lies passed around in the international media, specifically in the UK, re swedish sex crime law, most of which has it's originins with Assange's lawyers. I am talking of the whole "suprise sex"/"sex without a condom totally counts as rape in sweden" bullshit that floated around for a while. One of the earliest article's I saw in the UK went straight for "this would not count as rape in the UK", which I don't think is actually true. Also the UK officially criminalized spousal rape in the fucking 90's, so way to go reactionary argument.

Finally since, as the article shows, there really isn't any reason to believe that Cameron's government would be less compliable to U.S demands than Reinfeldt's that does leave open what apparently is unthinkable to Assange fanboys...that he is in fact stalling because he is guilty. And if this turns out to be the case some of his defenders should rightfully be pissed off that he is playing this game currently where he is doing his best conflate accusations of rape against himself with the U.S persecution of Wikileaks.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

3rd August 2012, 18:22

Funny source you have there, that starts off with:
29 February 2012: Stratfor e-mails have revealed that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011 (http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/375123_fw-ct-assange-manning-link-not-key-to-wikileaks-case-.html). This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order.

My bold.
I don't see how that "shoots down" their argument. In the first place, the US government has obviously not given an order at the present time. Second, the UK wouldn't necessarily have to comply to that order because of the reasons the article lists, regarding legal protection and review mechanisms. This was addressed in the specific section I referred to. For now I still believe that their arguments stand.

Yes I read the rest, but they kind of shoot down their own, and your, argument right there in the first paragraph. And then they go on to talk about the "swedish media climate"...call me a what ever you want but I do confess to being irked by frequent and outright lies passed around in the international media, specifically in the UK, re swedish sex crime law, most of which has it's originins with Assange's lawyers. I am talking of the whole "suprise sex"/"sex without a condom totally counts as rape in sweden" bullshit that floated around for a while. One of the earliest article's I saw in the UK went straight for "this would not count as rape in the UK", which I don't think is actually true. Also the UK officially criminalized spousal rape in the fucking 90's, so way to go reactionary argument.
I don't actually think you did read the rest, otherwise, you would actually confront the arguments head on as opposed to extrapolating on two words they use regarding the "media climate" in Sweden.

This reference to the smear of "sex by surprise" is troubling, I admit. I don't understand why Stephens saw fit to use that phrase, since such a charge is fictitious. Either way, the misogynist behavior of Assange or his lawyers has absolutely no bearing on whether he is actually guilty or innocent, so I am left in the dark as to why you think it is terribly relevant.

Finally since, as the article shows, there really isn't any reason to believe that Cameron's government would be less compliable to U.S demands than Reinfeldt's that does leave open what apparently is unthinkable to Assange fanboys...that he is in fact stalling because he is guilty. And if this turns out to be the case some of his defenders should rightfully be pissed off that he is playing this game currently where he is doing his best conflate accusations of rape against himself with the U.S persecution of Wikileaks.
I'm confused, because I wasn't aware we were debating which country was more likely to extradite Assange based on who was specifically elected to the head of state. The article focuses on the social and political climate of those countries, and Cameron is not even mentioned. Although, they do dedicate a considerable section dealing with Reinhardt's arguments regarding an extradition from Sweden to the US. Perhaps you could try reading that as well.

Of course, it is possible that Assange is guilty. We cannot be absolutely sure or either one at this point. I'm not of the opinion that the women's grievances are complete lies, though I do believe that the charges are...off, for lack of a better word. I am bothered by how poorly and carelessly the Swedish state has handled this case; their actions are what have mainly fueled my doubt. Naturally others in this thread have stated it already, and far more fully and eloquently than I. But I don't have anything else to say regarding this right now. I think you should actually answer Lucretia now, which was the main point of my last post. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if you ever will. Good day to you.

Crux

3rd August 2012, 18:48

Lucretia

3rd August 2012, 19:28

Crux

4th August 2012, 03:54

Majakovskij, I've still yet to hear any reason why Sweden would refuse to interview Assange outside of Sweden if the accusations it is investigating were made in good faith. Stop answering the question you wish you were asked, and answer the one you were asked. If you don't know the answer, simply say so. It's called honesty.
I don't agree with the assumption of your question, since, as you've seen, I argue from the other direction i.e, if, as it seems, he might as well be deported from the UK if the US really wanted it why is Assange doing his best to stall being questioned in sweden. I don't know why they wouldn't do initial questioning in the UK but fact remains he would probably have to come to Sweden eventually anyway.

Lucretia

4th August 2012, 06:45

I don't agree with the assumption of your question, since, as you've seen, I argue from the other direction i.e, if, as it seems, he might as well be deported from the UK if the US really wanted it why is Assange doing his best to stall being questioned in sweden. I don't know why they wouldn't do initial questioning in the UK but fact remains he would probably have to come to Sweden eventually anyway.

How can you say you disagree with my assumption when there is no "assumption" to the question. It has one (1) and only one (1) premise (not assumption): that Swedish authorities have refused to interview Assange outside of Sweden, although Assange has agreed to be interviewed outside of Sweden by Swedish authorities. Are you disputing this premise? If not, why don't you answer the question?

The question, to repeat one more time: Why do you think this is?

If you can come up with another answer to the question besides the obvious one, I'd like to hear it. This, by the way, I think is what you mean when you say you disagree with my assumption: that I am "assuming" their refusal to interview him outside of Sweden indicates that they have ulterior motives. But this is precisely what I am asking you to clarify with your answer. If you can provide me with one that makes any kind of sense, I will no longer "assume" the ulterior motives, which in light of all the available information is a perfectly logical DEDUCTION (again, NOT assumption).

If you feel uncomfortable answering the question, which is based on a single factual premise, that says more about your position than it does any tricky angle I'm bringing to the subject.

Crux

4th August 2012, 08:33

MEGAMANTROTSKY

4th August 2012, 14:09

And I think if the U.S wanted to go after Assange directly right now the article shows no reason why it could not do that in the UK. Again I read all of it, and aside from some possible technicalities (that would still have to go throughthe supreme court) it's main argument is that the political clime in sweden would make it super easy to extradite Assange. I think they are wrong in this and I most definately think they think it's basically impossible that their hero could be guilty (which would make his conflating of his own crimes with Wikileaks well look not so good or rather even worse). There never was and is not a climate against Wikileaks in Sweden. And again as you too say if the U.S was dead set on having him extradited they could do it right now. Possible they're waiting to see how the rape accusations play out, which should suit Assange just fine since he's playing the waiting game too.
The "article" does not just focus on the "political climate". It also deals with the possible (and actual) legal mechanisms that come into play here. The political climate is only one aspect of the argument, and it is certainly not the main aspect. I absolutely dispute that you've read the entire thing except the parts you want to dismiss.

And where did I say that the US could extradite Assange from Britain right now if they wanted to? The point of me linking that article was to show why that was unlikely to happen. At this point I can't tell if you're engaging in intellectual dishonesty by accident or on purpose. Please do not put words in my mouth.

You also seem to enjoy trying to make the argument go in different directions. In your last post you brought up the "sex by surprise" incident which, while inappropriate, has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. Please stick to what we're discussing. As I said before, I do not want this to turn into a clone of your "dirtbag" thread.

Crux

4th August 2012, 14:54

MEGAMANTROTSKY

4th August 2012, 15:34

It has everything to do with the case at hand if he's, you know, guilty. And again here's Assange response back in december 2010. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/wikileaks-founder-baffled-by-sex-assault-claims/story-fn775xjq-1225976459286) Unlikely because of a technicality? As I said I think they're either waiting this out or have simply decided not to pursue him at this time. Because, again, if they really wanted to there is little to stop them from going after him right now. which again makes this whole "these rape accusations are totally made up as a way to get Assange" a bit less credible. Are they taking advantage of the charges? Sure and why wouldn't they?

Oh and the ecuadorian foreign minister perpetuates ignorance: "Personally, (I think) this is hilarious," Ecuadoran chief diplomat Ricardo Patino said, explaining that Assange "is charged because his condom broke". (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/assange-charges-laughable-says/story-e6frg6so-1226418034924)
Before I begin, let me express my irritation that you have only replied to one third of my post; It's rather insulting. I have taken the time to respond as fully as I can to yours, I expect you to do the same. Do not pull something like that again with me. That includes any other evasion/anti-intellectual tactics, as well. The next time you do I will simply ignore you entirely.

The remarks you cite could certainly show that Assange has rather backward notions of feminism, and you're correct that his remarks are not disconnected from the case. I shouldn't have said otherwise, for I misspoke. I meant to say that those remarks have no bearing on whether Assange is actually guilty or innocent in this affair. [Edit note: I just realized that I have already responded to this same argument before, when I was speaking of the "sex by surprise" incident. You essentially recycled the same "misogynist behavior" argument in a different form. Unfortunately I fell for it, though I gave the same response (see post #140). I must say that you are really trying my patience. You had better not do this again if you want to continue this discussion.] I would say the same about the Ecuadoran foreign minister, as well. He is nothing but a soundbite. And again, for the reasons that other article listed, I doubt that it would be that easy to pluck Assange from Britain. I would ask you again to confront the arguments they have used, but at this point I'm not expecting much.

Lastly, I don't remember many people here (save for one or two) saying that the women have made everything up. That line of thinking is certainly without merit. But as it is certainly not my position, why have you brought it up? I don't see how it contributes to the discussion at all.

Lucretia

4th August 2012, 18:27

Apparently you'd do well to read what I said again. Sorry for the one-liner but you are insisting I answer a question I have already answered. If you start addressing things, other things as well, I've actually said we might even have a discussion.

Oh. So I need to read more carefully the post where you said that you would NOT answer my question because you "disagreed with its assumption" in order to locate the answer to my question. Makes sense to me :rolleyes:

Crux

4th August 2012, 19:13

Oh. So I need to read more carefully the post where you said that you would NOT answer my question because you "disagreed with its assumption" in order to locate the answer to my question. Makes sense to me :rolleyes:
Since you apparently zoned out after reading that, yes. At least if you intend to post a response.

Lastly, I don't remember many people here (save for one or two) saying that the women have made everything up. That line of thinking is certainly without merit. But as it is certainly not my position, why have you brought it up? I don't see how it contributes to the discussion at all.
Uh it's more than one or two, further more it is the underlying point with pretty much all "it's just a conspiracy" arguments. Oh and before you go there, again, I did address what you said. I consider it a technicality, and one that has to pass through the swedish supreme court. And unlike the case with the two egyptians in 06 deporting Assange can hardly be done in secret. I thought the argument about opposing having Assange questioned and charged in Sweden was about how likely it was Sweden would deport him to the U.S? If it's in fact quite likely that he can be deported from the UK and no reason to believe the British government would be less compliable to demands from the U.S that argument sort of folds.

And yes you are right I do enjoy making the argument about rape accusations be about rape accusations and how Assange and Assange's defenders have responded to those rape accusations because that is what this is largely about, yet many here refuse to talk about it at all. Even when there's blatant rape apologia uttered from the Ecuadorian government who are considering giving Assange asylum, something which this thread is at least nominally about you know.

A Marxist Historian

6th August 2012, 21:08

Apparently you'd do well to read what I said again. Sorry for the one-liner but you are insisting I answer a question I have already answered. If you start addressing things, other things as well, I've actually said we might even have a discussion.

I leave this thread for a few days, and we have the most incredible display of acrobatics on a flying trapeze to avoid answering a very simple question which Majakovskij claims he has answered already--but never has. Indeed, exactly the sort of thing you get from a lawyer arguing a bad case in court which he knows is wrong, but well, he is supposed to serve the interests of the client as best he can.

As the old adage goes, "if you can't argue the facts argue the law, if you cant argue the law argue the facts, and if you can't argue either, just keep talking..."

-jh-

A Marxist Historian

6th August 2012, 21:23

Since you apparently zoned out after reading that, yes. At least if you intend to post a response.

Uh it's more than one or two, further more it is the underlying point with pretty much all "it's just a conspiracy" arguments. Oh and before you go there, again, I did address what you said. I consider it a technicality, and one that has to pass through the swedish supreme court. And unlike the case with the two egyptians in 06 deporting Assange can hardly be done in secret. I thought the argument about opposing having Assange questioned and charged in Sweden was about how likely it was Sweden would deport him to the U.S? If it's in fact quite likely that he can be deported from the UK and no reason to believe the British government would be less compliable to demands from the U.S that argument sort of folds.

And yes you are right I do enjoy making the argument about rape accusations be about rape accusations and how Assange and Assange's defenders have responded to those rape accusations because that is what this is largely about, yet many here refuse to talk about it at all. Even when there's blatant rape apologia uttered from the Ecuadorian government who are considering giving Assange asylum, something which this thread is at least nominally about you know.

So then Assange is guilty of rape because the Ecuadorian ambassador is a sexist? I think that has to go down in some sort of museum as the perfect example of a pure "throw dust in the eys of the jury" argument.

And, as I have pointed out repeatedly, and others too, the political climate for deporting Assange to America is vastly better in Sweden than in England. Wikileaks may still be popular in Sweden, I dunno, but Assange definitely isn't. I don't know what the legal state of affairs is, I'll defer to Megaman on that one, but in this age of the "war on terror," legal rights for those like Assange accused of being "collaborators with terrorists" who in addition are unpopular, are just toilet paper.

Of course deporting Assange can be done in secret, as the Swedes are planning to hold him under lock and key, and limit public access. So the physical act of deportation, sticking him in a plane while handcuffed, is totally doable. Then they can announce it afterwards, and it wouldn't matter if the entire legal profession rose up in briefs and the entire Swedish citizenry hit the streets to march in protest, as he'd be landing at a US airport already by then.

Now, if the Swedes were actually to charge him with rape or anything else, that would make it very difficult, legally and more importantly politically, to deport him from Sweden to America. That is IMHO the real reason why no formal charges have been filed.

-M.H.-

Crux

7th August 2012, 02:59

I leave this thread for a few days, and we have the most incredible display of acrobatics on a flying trapeze to avoid answering a very simple question which Majakovskij claims he has answered already--but never has. Indeed, exactly the sort of thing you get from a lawyer arguing a bad case in court which he knows is wrong, but well, he is supposed to serve the interests of the client as best he can.

As the old adage goes, "if you can't argue the facts argue the law, if you cant argue the law argue the facts, and if you can't argue either, just keep talking..."

-jh-
Then I suggest you and Lucretia get your eyesight checked. Here's what I wrote:
I don't agree with the assumption of your question, since, as you've seen, I argue from the other direction i.e, if, as it seems, he might as well be deported from the UK if the US really wanted it why is Assange doing his best to stall being questioned in sweden. I don't know why they wouldn't do initial questioning in the UK but fact remains he would probably have to come to Sweden eventually anyway.

Crux

7th August 2012, 03:03

A Marxist Historian

7th August 2012, 20:18

Then I suggest you and Lucretia get your eyesight checked. Here's what I wrote:
I don't agree with the assumption of your question, since, as you've seen, I argue from the other direction i.e, if, as it seems, he might as well be deported from the UK if the US really wanted it why is Assange doing his best to stall being questioned in sweden. I don't know why they wouldn't do initial questioning in the UK but fact remains he would probably have to come to Sweden eventually anyway.

OK then, you're answer is that you have no idea and could care less.

That there really is no possible explanation for the Swedish refusal to question him off Swedish soil other than that this is all a scam to get him into the hands of the Americans is something you shrug your shoulders about, in thirty-six point type or thereabouts. You don't even try to argue otherwise, as it's a matter of no concern to you.

Why is that?

The only answer I can think of, the only logical answer in fact, is because you really don't give a damn if he ends up deported to the US, confined for life, tortured for Wikileaks info, etc. etc. Despite whatever pious words to the contrary you may waste electrons on here.

Fits your profile as a reformist Swedish social chauvinist nicely. I could go on about how this fits in so well with the profile of your Brit mothership, but that would be derailing the thread in your fashion.

-M.H.-

P.S. He would only have to "go to Sweden eventually" if there turned out to be actually some merit to the accusations, which there isn't. At least, they'd have to charge him with something, what they have so carefully and deliberately avoided doing.

The whole purpose of all this, obviously, is to get Assange into a cell across the hall from Bradley Manning.

A Marxist Historian

7th August 2012, 20:30

And no, Assange being a "terrorist collaborator" is not an opinion held outside of, possibly, arch-conservative fringes in Sweden. I see you have many theories and lots of wishful thinking. As usual. And the fact that Assange and his would be political asylum seems to at least be in no small part based on almost parodical sexism is of course not something that concerns you. Again, no surprises there either.

Why does what the Swedes think matter? They are not really running this operation. For that matter, I don't think that Obama really thinks that Bradley Manning, the guy who allegedly collaborated with Assange, is a "terrorist collaborator." However, that's the kind of thing Manning is being charged with, and last I heard the prosecutors haven't even taken the death penalty off the table.

If you really think the ambassador of Ecuador, a tiny little Latin American country, is going to give political asylum to an enemy of the United States of America on the basis of sexism, you have a screw loose.

Obviously, Ecuador is giving him asylum as an anti-imperialist gesture. The current Prez fancies himself as a lefty, and no doubt is a Wikileaks fan. And, equally obviously, this is an extremely insecure asylum, any serious pressure from the US and tiny little Ecuador will buckle.

-M.H.-

Crux

7th August 2012, 20:36

OK then, you're answer is that you have no idea and could care less.
So I had that use the biggest type for you to even aknowledge that I had written an answer? Okey, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Have you considered getting reading glasses?

That there really is no possible explanation for the Swedish refusal to question him off Swedish soil other than that this is all a scam to get him into the hands of the Americans is something you shrug your shoulders about, in thirty-six point type or thereabouts. You don't even try to argue otherwise, as it's a matter of no concern to you.
I see I hit a raw nerve there with your not caring about the possible rape charges. Poor you. No you see I have answered this too, many many times. Do I need to repost it huge print for you?

The only answer I can think of, the only logical answer in fact, is because you really don't give a damn if he ends up deported to the US, confined for life, tortured for Wikileaks info, etc. etc. Despite whatever pious words to the contrary you may waste electrons on here.

Fits your profile as a reformist Swedish social chauvinist nicely. I could go on about how this fits in so well with the profile of your Brit mothership, but that would be derailing the thread in your fashion.

-M.H.-
Really do I need to go back and repost what I've said in huge lettering? I can go back to 2010 if you need it. The only reason you think it' the only "logical" answer is because your "logic" is clearly flawed.

P.S. He would only have to "go to Sweden eventually" if there turned out to be actually some merit to the accusations, which there isn't. At least, they'd have to charge him with something, what they have so carefully and deliberately avoided doing.

The whole purpose of all this, obviously, is to get Assange into a cell across the hall from Bradley Manning.
Yes, because women really need to stop making rape charges against people you like, like Michael Jackson, R. Kelly, Roman Polanski and Julian Assange. See this is why I can't take your "logic" seriously because it is based on a combination of "It must be a conspiracy because I want it to be" and "rape is no big deal anyway, they're obviously CIA whores".

A Marxist Historian

8th August 2012, 22:46

So I had that use the biggest type for you to even aknowledge that I had written an answer? Okey, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Have you considered getting reading glasses?"...

I did need the large type, thank you.

I found it hard to believe that you, Majakovskij, really did "have no idea and could care less," as I just put it and as you have just agreed, about the possibility of Assange being deported to American custody and tortured for Wikileaks info.

Now that we've established that, with both you and me and all other commentators on this thread agreeing on that, I suppose this thread is now complete and there is nothing more to say.

-M.H.-

Crux

9th August 2012, 01:33

I did need the large type, thank you.

I found it hard to believe that you, Majakovskij, really did "have no idea and could care less," as I just put it and as you have just agreed, about the possibility of Assange being deported to American custody and tortured for Wikileaks info.

Now that we've established that, with both you and me and all other commentators on this thread agreeing on that, I suppose this thread is now complete and there is nothing more to say.

-M.H.-
Nope, I have not, nor have I ever. I suggest you read pretty much every single post I have made on the subject again and you will find I have in fact said the exact opposite from day one. But since you are incapable of holding two thoughts in your head at the same time for you it is impossible to believe someone else could. I recognize the work Julian Assange has done and I recognize the potential threat the U.S poses against him. I also recognize that none of these facts mean he could not possibly rape someone, in fact they are unrelated, because even "good guys" (although much points to Assange being a scumbag in those regards) can rape and even rapists can do good things (like WikiLeaks).

The rest, and this as well, I have already told you over and over but it just does not seem to register at all for you, because you chose to ignore what I write and instead imagine what I write and then respond to that instead. If you could stop doing that, but it sadly seems to be a signum of your organization to debate extremely dishonestly, or possibly genuinely unable to even grasp the basics of the positions of other organizations or even individuals, I don't have much hope for that.

Krano

16th August 2012, 15:25

NDGR3yAReeE
KU2gDGY43Zg

A Marxist Historian

16th August 2012, 22:27

Nope, I have not, nor have I ever. I suggest you read pretty much every single post I have made on the subject again and you will find I have in fact said the exact opposite from day one. But since you are incapable of holding two thoughts in your head at the same time for you it is impossible to believe someone else could. I recognize the work Julian Assange has done and I recognize the potential threat the U.S poses against him. I also recognize that none of these facts mean he could not possibly rape someone, in fact they are unrelated, because even "good guys" (although much points to Assange being a scumbag in those regards) can rape and even rapists can do good things (like WikiLeaks).

The rest, and this as well, I have already told you over and over but it just does not seem to register at all for you, because you chose to ignore what I write and instead imagine what I write and then respond to that instead. If you could stop doing that, but it sadly seems to be a signum of your organization to debate extremely dishonestly, or possibly genuinely unable to even grasp the basics of the positions of other organizations or even individuals, I don't have much hope for that.

While we were arguing and you were claiming that you were against putting Assange in American hands, which for all practical purposes you are, regardless of how many pious claims to the contrary you make and perfectly good electrons you've wasted in the last couple years to make them, the issue has been settled.

Turns out, I didn't know that, that Assange had offered to be extradited to Sweden and interrogated, if the Swedes would only guarantee that he wouldn't be extradited from there to America! And the Swedes refused!

And now the Brits are threatening to storm the Ecuadoran embassy!

C'mon, Majakovski, do you really believe the crap you have been dropping on us here, or are you just dog loyally following your organization's discipline in spreading it. Hmm, I guess you can't answer that.

-M.H.-

Crux

17th August 2012, 14:05

While we were arguing and you were claiming that you were against putting Assange in American hands, which for all practical purposes you are, regardless of how many pious claims to the contrary you make and perfectly good electrons you've wasted in the last couple years to make them, the issue has been settled.

Turns out, I didn't know that, that Assange had offered to be extradited to Sweden and interrogated, if the Swedes would only guarantee that he wouldn't be extradited from there to America! And the Swedes refused!

And now the Brits are threatening to storm the Ecuadoran embassy!

C'mon, Majakovski, do you really believe the crap you have been dropping on us here, or are you just dog loyally following your organization's discipline in spreading it. Hmm, I guess you can't answer that.

-M.H.-
Actually I am only writing in personal capacity here, not as an official spokesperson of the CWI. And yes I believe what I say, whereas you seem to have to cover up your real position at every turn (your use of the phrase "CIA whores" is quite memorable in this regard).

I keep a principled position, not succumbing to rape-apologism nor dropping any opposition to U.S extradition charges, whereas you opportunistically latch onto the "Free Assange"-nonsense. Yes, it is nonsense because neither Assange nor his Ecuadorian friends are claiming the rape charges are in fact some elaborate conspiracy just the tired old lies about the laws concerned and pretty much the usual "she was wearing revealing clothing" we see during rape trials. Is Assange afraid to speak the truth on this massive conspiracy that is really fabricating the charges or are you and many others engaging in wishful thinking and conspiracy theorist "logic"?

And now that it seems Assange might be deported from the UK...how much is that supposed argument, at the fundamental base of his defenders argument, that sweden would be "more likely" to extradite to the U.S than the UK, worth now?

Oswy

17th August 2012, 16:21

A Marxist Historian

17th August 2012, 23:50

... Is Assange afraid to speak the truth on this massive conspiracy that is really fabricating the charges or are you and many others engaging in wishful thinking and conspiracy theorist "logic"?

And now that it seems Assange might be deported from the UK...how much is that supposed argument, at the fundamental base of his defenders argument, that sweden would be "more likely" to extradite to the U.S than the UK, worth now?

As for Assange, hey, he started this as a liberal, and a fairly anti-communist one at that. His original idea wasn't to expose US imperialism, but expose the Chinese. And Wikileaks originally notoriously had around it some very dubious elements, in fact that's how Assange got into this mess in the first place, getting involved with people like the women making these charges against him. He evolved politically over the course of the Wikileaks experience.

I don't want to try to read either his mind or those of his lawyers, as neither, unlike you, posts to Revleft. But sure, I think it is more than possible that Assange doesn't want to make accusation in public that make him sound like a wild eyed radical. And I'm absolutely sure that his lawyers are insisting that all his statements be very moderate and that no conspiracy allegations be made, except perhaps at safer targets like feminists.

As for the Brits threatening now to deport him directly to the US and not bothering with Sweden, I hadn't heard that. But if true, it's your allegations that get punctured, not mine.

Obviously, the Brits are seriously pissed at the Ecuadorians, threatening to storm their embassy, and it's quite possible that the Tories have gotten to the point that they no longer care about political repercussions of handing him directly over to the Americans by now.

-M.H.-

Lucretia

18th August 2012, 00:12

As for Assange, hey, he started this as a liberal, and a fairly anti-communist one at that. His original idea wasn't to expose US imperialism, but expose the Chinese. And Wikileaks originally notoriously had around it some very dubious elements, in fact that's how Assange got into this mess in the first place, getting involved with people like the women making these charges against him. He evolved politically over the course of the Wikileaks experience.

I don't want to try to read either his mind or those of his lawyers, as neither, unlike you, posts to Revleft. But sure, I think it is more than possible that Assange doesn't want to make accusation in public that make him sound like a wild eyed radical. And I'm absolutely sure that his lawyers are insisting that all his statements be very moderate and that no conspiracy allegations be made, except perhaps at safer targets like feminists.

As for the Brits threatening now to deport him directly to the US and not bothering with Sweden, I hadn't heard that. But if true, it's your allegations that get punctured, not mine.

Obviously, the Brits are seriously pissed at the Ecuadorians, threatening to storm their embassy, and it's quite possible that the Tories have gotten to the point that they no longer care about political repercussions of handing him directly over to the Americans by now.

-M.H.-

AMH, you're just wasting your breath on Majakovskij at this point. His argument basically amounts to, "if you disagree with me, you're a sexist." How can anybody take that seriously?

I'll reconsider the seriousness of his arguments if he can provide any alternative explanation for why the Swedish government, if its sole intention in all of this is to prosecute a potential sex crime, is more willing to grind the investigation to a halt than it is to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to the U.S.

Crux

18th August 2012, 01:01

If only the "seriousness" of my argument was dependent on your criteria. Again this is cognitive dissonance on your part. AMH ascribes to an extremely dubious conspiracy theory intermingled with classical "blame the victim" stuff and of course the very real persecution by the U.S of WikiLeaks. The cognitive dissonance becomes visible as soon as the actual allegations are discussed, something AMH naturally desperately wants to avoid. I am merely trying to bring some sense to this discussion, and you know not play with conspiracy theory and rape apologism. Of course doing this leaves me open to many varied ad hominems from AMH, from "social democraticism" to "patriotism" to "providing intelligence for imperialism" to "scabbiness" to "feminism" (which to AMH is a bad thing, as he has stated multiple times).

A Marxist Historian

18th August 2012, 01:19

AMH, you're just wasting your breath on Majakovskij at this point. His argument basically amounts to, "if you disagree with me, you're a sexist." How can anybody take that seriously?.

Yes, and not only that, he even has the brass to accuse me of "ad hominems"!

I'll reconsider the seriousness of his arguments if he can provide any alternative explanation for why the Swedish government, if its sole intention in all of this is to prosecute a potential sex crime, is more willing to grind the investigation to a halt than it is to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to the U.S.

You're absolutely right. An electron is a terrible thing to waste.

Until he can provide at bare minimum something more explanatory than "I don't know and I don't care," in 36 point type no less, as to why the Swedes refuse to even guarantee that Assange will not be extradited to America from Swedish soil, what's the point of even arguing with him? He has exposed himself, and more back and forth will just allow him to be even more evasive.

And I'd urge all others here to do the same.

To save time and electrons, I'll note that Internet searching has illuminated what the excuse the Swedes have for not charging him. Allegedly, this would violate Swedish legal procedure. Majakovskii has been clever enough not to raise this point, as people would laugh at him here I'm sure for that kind of stupid legalism.

But even that argument can hardly hold water as to why they won't guarantee that he won't be extradited to the US. Which tips the whole game off to anyone with two working brain cells--anyone who cares that is, unlike Majakovskii.

-M.H.-