161–170 of 396 posts
i suppose 5 years of sitting in an ecuadoran embassy is no fun but he still escaped justice.
It should be noted that the prosecutor had three options: 1: Drop the charges. 2: Drop the arrest order but continue the investigation. To do so require a plan which would progress the investigation. 3: Charge Assange with rape, arguing that the evidence collected so far is enough for a case. And we got the first option, and thus we can conclude that the prosecutor don't have enough evidence to go to court and have n…
Well if you cannot question the accused, it sort of limits what evidence you can collect...
What do you mean? The Swedish prosecutor has been invited to question Assange for the last 5 years and declined to do so until a few months ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strangely, the women's lawyers had a slightly different view of their desire to pursue the matter through the court than the Assange campaign to prevent the matter going to trial. It stretches credulity to argue that responsibility for the affair lies more with the "big powers" than the decision of two apparently major fans to report him to the police after comparing notes on his sexual behaviour. And suggesting the…
> If the state wanted to railroad Assange, he'd have been in jail a lot quicker on much more straightforward charges Such as?
If a government conspiracy really wants someone in jail, it's a lot easier to make a proper false allegation - of pretty much any sort - with evidence under their control rather than try to force an existing totally unexpected and rather wobbly one to stand up.
On the other hand, prosecutors and police investigators regularly have differences in opinions about the merits of pursuing borderline sexual misconduct or domestic violence accusations with unenthusiastic witnesses without any semblance of a conspiracy whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a "kill list" [1] which is unbelievable on its own so I don't see this as much of a stretch. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
Oh my god. If Trump would introduce something like that the entire internet would explode.
i dont like it when a rapist goes free. what i like less is his apologists. it is like with trump. if you have enough followers it is apparantly ok to mistreat women. i suppose 5 years of sitting in an ecuadoran embassy is no fun but he still escaped justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure about 'secret charges' but there are these recent charges. [1] [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wi...
What base do these have? Assange isn't a US citizen, so he can't be charged for treason like Snowden and Manning. He just gained information and published it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He needs to face justice one way or another.
What is his crime? He isn't the one committing war crimes. He is exposing them. Yet we continue to go after whistle blowers and journalist instead of the ones who committed these crimes against humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is his crime? He isn't the one committing war crimes. He is exposing them. Yet we continue to go after whistle blowers and journalist instead of the ones who committed these crimes against humanity.
Well he was accused of rape, or, more accurately, sexual assault by other countries' definitions. Those charges have now been dropped, for what I can only assume "a preponderance of the evidence suggesting the defendant is permanently insanity". But he may have committed other crimes in his attempt to flee the rape charge (not sure if 'failure to appear' is a crime in the UK, that differs by jurisdiction). None of al…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assange had a very personal vendetta with Hillary Clinton, the Kremlin were merely another weapon.
When Assange was studying his PhD in the US (Bill Clinton was president at the time) the funding for his research was suddenly cut by the US Government, and he was never told why. He's held a grudge against the US Government since then.
It's unproven one way or the other, here's the Snopes article:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't the US Bill of Rights talk in several places about "any person": Fifth Amendment to USA Constitution: >nor shall any person [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Sounds like quite a strong right. FWIW this contrasts with the pages referring to "the people" which are limited and not universal, "any person" means any person.
I'm not a US legal scholar but I wouldn't be surprised to know the US Supreme Court might have ruled that such rights do not apply to non-US citizens.