Metalmurphy
Member
He "raped" Lady Gaga?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ecuador 'very concerned about Julian Assange's health'
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
He "raped" Lady Gaga?
Funny thing about that. You have to actually go to court to prove there's no evidence.
That's Lady Gaga? Well, no but she could report that later down the road.
Yes, because the US justice system is so fair and balanced.
outunderthestars
Banned
Again, How do you know the charges are bogus? Have you seen their evidence? The man needs to stand trial and stop hiding.
I have no idea if he is a criminal, that is for the courts to decide.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Lady Gaga poisoned him.
I can see her working for the CIA. Brilliant.
yeah i think so too, its a good career booster.
You do, otherwise boycotts may happen.
If you have a software company, and before anyone else you detect a catastrophic bug which would make all your customers lose important data, would you make a big noise about it?, anyone would fix it and discretly warn their customers about that. So sometimes you have to hide the truth from the public or at least make little noise about it.
If they were to invade the Ecuadorian embassy and forcibly remove him than that would be like an invading Ecuador itself, i.e an act of war.
He's only been there since June.
What has that got do with anything?
phosphor112
Banned
If you say so.
RT is just like Fox, propaganda machines for their respective countries.
Nor did Gary McKinnon but that didn't stop them from trying to extradite him to the US.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
They really wouldn't need to nor would a trial be their aim (at least I think that's the rational behind his asylum)
They could have tried to get him any time before that, but didn't.
I think he has always gone underground, the Swedish police already raided their webhost so obviously they are looking for information on him.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Embassies don't have extraterritorial status.
The US have NEVER arrested or killed alleged spies on foreign soil!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-hztLLc3AY
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
They detain people all the time who are charged with crimes. That's the distinction between "jail" and "prison". Manning is technically in "jail" and also, being Military, the have their own set of rules on detention and trial, if I'm not mistaken.
You could say the same about Cuba, they have their own set of rules because I think all the people are considered something like military. And still USA and the world say that is bad, but when USA does is ok?
I find it very incredible for yanks to accept how all this has been deal with, Manning case is a disgrace.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
Well, except that membership in military in the United States is voluntary and all that, and the reach of military justice doesn't extend beyond the military. They've had their own set of rules (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for a while.
And don't just lump "yanks" in, as if we all think that its okay.
I do say so. RT openly practices what Assange lambasts other media outlets for. Not to mention being a tool of Putin to further his oppression.
diamount is randomly dragging the US into this debate, which it has no part in whatsoever, and then has the audacity to respond to someone who gave a factual, one sentence statement, with "What does that have to do with anything"? lol. gtfo.
The guy is wanted in Sweden to answer rape charges. Whether you think the evidence is good/bad is irrelevant. Swedish authorities have enough evidence to press charges and he needs to go there and stand trial. The European arrest warrant has been deemed valid in several courts. There have been no US charges or an indictment against Assange. Were there to be a hypothetical US indictment, then that would have to go through the UK, Swedish, and European courts.
The US does not even enter into the equation, unless you believe that the US has somehow meddled with, and fabricated the rape charges in Sweden, which there is absolutely no evidence for.
The only reasons why one would argue for Assange to be let off the hook and evade Swedish justice is because they are either:
a) A conspiracy nutcase (see above).
b) Do not believe in independent judicial systems (in a robust 21st century European judicial system, nonetheless).
What the fuck does the US, Gary McKinnon, Bradley Manning, or anyone else have to do with any of this? Nothing.
Assange loses respect for every day he spends evading justice.
The guy is wanted in Sweden to answer rape charges. Whether you think the evidence is good/bad is irrelevant. Swedish authorities have enough evidence to press charges and he needs to go there and stand trial. The European arrest warrant has been deemed valid in several courts. There have been no US charges or an indictment against Assange. Were there to be a hypothetical US indictment, then that would have to go through the UK, Swedish, and European courts.
The US does not even enter into the equation, unless you believe that the US has somehow meddled with, and fabricated the rape charges in Sweden, which there is absolutely no evidence for.
The only reasons why one would argue for Assange to be let off the hook and evade Swedish justice is because they are either:
a) A conspiracy nutcase (see above).
b) Do not believe in independent judicial systems (in a robust 21st century European judicial system, nonetheless).
What the fuck does the US, Gary McKinnon, Bradley Manning, or anyone else have to do with any of this? Nothing.
Assange loses respect for every day he spends evading justice.
Yeah, thats why hes set up an elaborate system of encryption keys and handed them out to over 100 sources to continue his work in the case of his arrest. ...
LETS LISTEN TO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIAS OPINION ON THE GUY LEAKING MILITARY DOCZ
Bardley Manning leaked documents to Assange.
Assange published the documents.
Bradley Manning has been locked away by the US government without any due process.
Julian Assange was accused of rape after one of the accusers found out he was having sex with the other. The accusers went to police and made an accusation of rape. The accusers later refused to sign a sworn statement, and the investigation was dropped due to a lack of evidence. The day after the alleged rape took place, the accuser threw Assange a party.
Later, the investigation was reopened, and no reason was given. The accusers have since stated that they were pressured by police to sign sworn statements against Assange. Assange was not in Sweden when the investigation was reopened, (he left after it was first closed), and refuses to return to Sweden because he believes the investigation was only reopened as a ruse to extradite him to the US where he would be treated as Manning as been (or worse).
The Swedish court has refused to interview Assange via phone or video conference in lieu of his physical presence in.
If you still don't see what the problem is, then you're blind.
What is Manning charged with? When is his trial? Has he had proper access to legal counsel?
Military courts are not above or separate from the rest of the court system. He has a right to due process and expedient justice. You can't just stick someone in a hole and say he's being charged for something and then never have a trial.
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
He was originally charged in 2010. Additional charges were filed in 2011. None since.
Charges (via Wikipedia):
So he's probably facing life in prison if convicted, potentially execution if convicted of "Aiding the Enemy" and sentenced in such a manner. :/
He's in the pre-trail steps right now, I believe a trial was set for September, but there have been appeals and various hearing to see if he is fit to stand trial and all that.
He has civilians lawyers (David Edward Coombs, former Military lawyer). I believe that he's had ample access to them, given how much they've fought to get him good conditions during his pre-trail detention, but I could be wrong/misinformed on that.
Ignorance too and I'm sad to say that you're quite full of it.
Assange is an oldschool hacker from the late '80 era and even got busted back in the days. He kind of dedicated his life to stuff like this.
YourMaster
Member
So opinions about the relevance of the rape-evidence are irrelevant, but you are free to stipulate there is no evidence for US involvement and that this lack of evidence is important in this situation?
First off, before there was any mention of the molestation charges in Sweden the US did do some horrendous things to both Assange and Wikileaks in plain view of the world - no secrecy involved there at all. I'm not talking about the politicians calling out for his assassination, but the pressure they put on companies that provide crucial services.
Secondly, one of the mayor strengths of the US in international affairs has always been their secret service. It is well documented that the US is not afraid to target people they perceive as a threat outside their own borders even if they have no legal ground.
And finally, if the US would be behind the molestation charges, it has certainly proved to be effective. If you look at this tread alone, few people see this man as one of the greatest heroes of our age and wikileaks as a fundamental component for freedom of speech and freedom of press.
However, none of us can really tell if there truly is a conspiracy or he actually mistreated these woman. One of the few people who does know however is Assange himself, and he has every reason to not go to Sweden. If he's guilty he knows it, he would be an asshole for(the crime and) not facing his day in court, but it would be unwise for him to face prosecution when he's guilty. If he's not guilty he knows that too, and that would be clear evidence of a conspiracy to him.
Additionally, people might believe in independent judicial systems, but they would be foolish to believe these systems are immune to manipulation. The judge might rule with a clear conscience, but could still come to the wrong conclusion if presented with tempered evidence.
Flatline
Banned
Thanks for your passive aggressive bullshit that are based on zero facts, great contribution to the thread. For the record there aren't even rape accusations let alone rape conviction to call that man a rapist.
But apparently it's something to be used for political purposes.
shira
Member
I was going to say this was a Halloween costume but maybe that is Assange with Lady Gaga in normal attire
Elvin Atombender
Member
Has the US asked for him to be extradited?
As far as I understand it, if Assange is sent to Sweden both Swedish AND UK courts will have to be involved before he can be extradited to USA. Wouldn't it have been easier to just ask for him from the UK? They just extradited Hamza (?) and a few others to the US, didn't they?
I can't really see how this is some great plan to have Assange sent to the US.
Yes, since the Swedish authorities have decided there is enough evidence to procede with charges, and the European arrest warrant has been deemed valid in several different courts in the UK. Opinions about the evidence are irrelevant at this stage. Legal proceedings have been started and now it is time for the evidence to be judged in a Swedish court.
There is no evidence that the US has any involvement in the rape/molestation charges against Assange.
Again, this is all irrelevant. Assange is wanted on rape/molestation charges in Sweden. Wikileaks is not on trial here. You are free to have an opinion about the Wikileaks saga, but it has got nothing to do with the matter at hand. That is a completely separate matter. Do not conflate the rape/molestation charges with the Wikileaks operation.
I don't think many people would dispute that the US can reach people who it deems to be a threat around the world, but there is no evidence that the US has any involvement in the rape/molestation charges against Assange. The only method the US has of "targeting" Assange is through indicting and extraditing him. This has not happened so far and if it does then it will have to go through UK, Swedish and European courts.
This doesn't even make any sense. So unless one lauds Assange as one of the "greatest heroes of our age", then this is proof that the US is involved in the rape charges? Right...
I can barely believe that you typed out the bolded. What an absurd statement.
The whole point of a criminal trial is to test the evidence, and prove the charges (i.e. whether he is guilty or not).
And I assume that would form part of Assange's defense, that the witnesses are unreliable etc. So I will repeat:
The whole point of a criminal trial is to test the evidence, and prove the charges (i.e. whether he is guilty or not).
You are arguing that Assange should not face trial due to the possibility (for which you have no evidence) that the US is involved in fabricating the charges.
He has been charged with rape:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.judiciary.gov.uk%2FResources%2FJCO%2FDocuments%2FJudgments%2Fassange-summary.pdf
HurricaneJesus
Member
Long live Assange.
Long live Wikileaks.
Long live Wikileaks.
ComputerMKII
Banned
When was the last time Wikileaks leaked anything?
FelixOrion
Poet Centuriate
"On 5 July 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing the Syria Files, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012."
It has slowed down, though, yes.
YourMaster
Member
The argument isn't that this case should be handled by a court. The argument is whether or not going to court in this matter will result in him being for something that's supposedly completely unrelated.
There are suspicious circumstances, and naturally no proof to the contrary. I don't claim the US is involved - not because I can't proof it, but because I'm truly not convinced either way - but I do believe the US are capable to do this if they wanted too.
It's not a separate matter at all, it's at the core of the argument. Is there a 'common' molestation charge, or is there a conspiracy at work.
The argument is relevant, because it indicates that the US is willing to act immorally where it comes to freedom of information and such a conspiracy would be immoral. So in fact it's a counter argument against the hidden argument: 'The US would never steep so low'.
Again, they would, can't be sure they did or did not.
This is certainly not true, the US has the power and resources to do as they please. History has shown they are willing to use that power way beyond the international legal systems. Just recently they killed a man with a beard by sending a team of marines(A fine choice, but few lawyers were involved).
Straw man argument right here. I'm not stating the US is involved, I'm stating they might me involved. And what I'm arguing here, is if they had taken this road, it would have been effective. This case has damaged the reputation of Assange. It's just that he might have done that himself.
I think you misunderstand. I understand what a criminal trial is for, I also understand that a criminal trial is not always in the best interest of the person on trial - especially if that person committed said crime. Said person is usually aware if he committed said crime and if so it would be in his best interest to make sure he is never tried.
In normal cases however, your day in court is perfect to prove your innocence. However, in this particular case, I would argue, would Assange truly be innocent, for him the fact that he is charged with rape would be strong evidence of a conspiracy.
In short, whether Assange is guilty or not he would be smart to stay away. If he is guilty, that would not be best for the Swedish citizens.
True. You said the only argument people have would be that the courts are not independent. I say there is another argument: That there are people powerful enough to manipulate the legal system into making mistakes.
And no, I do not know this would happen in this case. The problem with covert operations is that they tend to stay secret, so nobody really knows.
About this whole thing, I think is smells fishy. Problem is, who's making the stink,... Do we have a government abusing its power to harm a man who did his democratic duty, or do we have a molester who's abusing his podium to get out of a fair trial.
My gut feeling says maybe.
Wafflecakes
Member
At least someone is worried. I for one am not.
Dirtbag.
Wikileaks was 100% stupid fluff. If you are going to break the law and be a douche at least do it over something the public NEEDS to know.
Dirtbag.
Wikileaks was 100% stupid fluff. If you are going to break the law and be a douche at least do it over something the public NEEDS to know.
Metalmurphy
Member
Because the world doesn't need to know about Americas war crimes right?
The world needs to know about those. That wasn't what he did though. He dumped everything, whether it was allegedly evidence of a crime or not. Names, identities, details of involvement, and all kinds of other shit that didn't relate to wrong doing and served no purpose other than to potentially put people in danger. Plenty of people that worked with this guy can't stand him, and now he's running away from criminal proceedings where he's been accused of a serious crime by Sweden. All the while he hides behind allies who, were he not a huge opportunistic hypocrite, he should be lambasting for their own lack of freedom regarding information and the press. Fucking Ecuador? Are you kidding me? All he does is rely on a bunch of idiots to make a stink over his delusional accusations, and it isn't working. No one cares about Wikileaks or Julian Assange, and if anyone thinks the man is worth any trouble for the US right now they're crazy. This whole fiasco is the only reason the guy gets his name in the paper.
Wafflecakes
Member
Except all were so minor and insignificant that they created exactly 0 news. Wikileaks itself was the news.....not what came out. Nothing included in those files were more offensive than what would happen in any long term warzone with any military in the world.
Keep blowing smoke though.
- Status