151–160 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How afraid is he though? Not afraid enough to tweet an offer to "agree to US extradition" if Obama showed clemency to Manning.
Obama did, and Assange reneged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The accusations against Assange could very well be a conspiracy involving the US, Sweden and the UK to silence wikileaks because they leaked videos of civilians being killed by American military. Or it could just be him raping or sexually assaulting two women in Sweden and the police and prosecution wanting to follow their rules and interview him about it.
> it could just be him raping or sexually assaulting two women in Sweden 1) He is not accused of that 2) If we're gonna translate legal charges we should be consistent and honest -- Assange is accused of what the rest of the world calls 'sexual misconduct' 3) This article is showing the intense and continued irregularities in this case that are so large as to be visible from orbit. Even if Assange is guilty as fuck i…
2) Now you're being dishonest with your translation. Julian was accused of "Olaga tvång", "sexuellt ofredande" and "våldtäkt". If you want to translate "sexuellt ofredande" to sexual misconduct I guess that's fine but it seems most news papers translate it to sexual molestation or sexual assault. "Våldtäkt" cannot be translated to anything other than rape.
3-5) This is more conspiracy theories. The only special treatment Assange has gotten is by Ecuador and large part of the internet that claims the US is behind all this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and any diplomat ... worth his/her salt already has procedures to skip the country. It’s called diplomatic immunity. Diplomats don’t have secret plans for bailing out of countries because they don’t need them. Diplomats don’t hide in embassies. They walk onto airplanes and fly home.
Tell that to the US Embassy workers fleeing Hanoi? Or those killed by insurgents elsewhere? Of course they have many pre-determined safety procedures including rapid retreat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and any diplomat ... worth his/her salt already has procedures to skip the country. It’s called diplomatic immunity. Diplomats don’t have secret plans for bailing out of countries because they don’t need them. Diplomats don’t hide in embassies. They walk onto airplanes and fly home.
> They walk onto airplanes and fly home. Unless they have been declared persona non grata by the receiving nation ( Article 9 ). Usually the individual is given 72 hours to get out but that is not codified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it could just be him raping or sexually assaulting two women in Sweden 1) He is not accused of that 2) If we're gonna translate legal charges we should be consistent and honest -- Assange is accused of what the rest of the world calls 'sexual misconduct' 3) This article is showing the intense and continued irregularities in this case that are so large as to be visible from orbit. Even if Assange is guilty as fuck i…
1) He is accused of that. He is still accused of rape its statue of limitations expires 2020, ten years after it was alleged to have happened. Although that investigation has been closed because there is little hope of it going to trial, since he fled the country and is hidden away. 2) Now you're being dishonest with your translation. Julian was accused of "Olaga tvång", "sexuellt ofredande" and "våldtäkt". If you wa…
2) I have read the entire allegation and accordant police reports, på svenska, in the allegers own words. Våldtäkt directly and literally translates to rape, yes. Know of any examples where direct and literal translations don't work? ... You have not understood my point and answered another. His alleged behaviour is described as sexual misconduct for english speakers the world over. This point is brought up many times in this thread and whenever the case is discussed, it's equally disingenuous each time its wilfully conflated.
3-5) I have directly addressed the fallacious use of the word "conspiracy" in this context. I have shown explicit objective facts, including those detailed in this threads article, to articulated a highly unspeculative pattern of behaviour with deep historical precedent and blatant irregularities. You have dismissed that without addressing any of the content or fact and proffered a verifiably untrue assertion in return.
---
You have not read what you have responded to, or not taken the time to think it through.
Seek first to understand, then to shitpost ;)
I'm thinking about what would happen if instead of Assange we were dealing with a person from a country where religion and government are intertwined, and that person was asking for asylum to the UK for accusations that are not crimes in the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no Disneyland in Florida so we'll never know that one for sure. More seriously, you're moving the goalposts. There are lots of people who are better off sticking to Disneyland, Paris rather than Disneyland, Anaheim. That doesn't mean the US government is actively trying to get a hold of them or considers their apprehension and prosecution in US courts important or even feasible. The idea that the USG is activ…
> There's no Disneyland in Florida so we'll never know that one for sure. Excuse me, Disneyworld. I'm not exactly their target demographic. > The idea that the USG is actively hunting Assange is his main excuse for hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy. The main source of that idea, as far as I can tell, is Assange and the evidence for it is very thin indeed. Well, yes. But given some of the statements of US officials…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but there's a spectrum between "oh, this is leaked truth", and "even in the leak, there's just one person with no connection to the DOJ saying 'shh, we have a secret indictment against him!'."
I'm assuming Stratfor doesn't just make stuff up, their connection to the US government is far too sensitive for that. It's not just some random conspiracy group or tinfoil hatter saying that, it's Stratfor. You know, this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratfor
Are you sure you know what you're talking about here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> isn't even recognized as rape outside of Sweden. Having sex with an unconscious person, even someone asleep, is against the law in some jurisdictions. Really depends on how they define consent (in England's case sleep is "black-letter" lack of consent). Specific to England: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offenc...
> Having sex with an unconscious person, even someone asleep, is against the law The allegation is not that he had intercourse with someone unconscious. The allegation is that he re-initiated sexual relations with a coitus partner who was initially asleep and who then woke up , asked about a condom, then later regretted not stopping because of the lack of a condom. There is a distinct legal difference between non-con…
And that right there makes it non-consensual. The law (in England and other jursidictions) specifically mention asleep (amongst other conditions) that render a person unable to consent to sex.
Once Assange stuck his penis into a sleeping woman's vagina means he's guilty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This situation will not change until a different party gets in power, carrying a different view of the UK’s relationship with their traditional military allies. I’m not sure the PM actually has the power to do that. Assange is wanted right now for skipping bail. No government is going to pass an Act declaring that not-a-crime.
There is no need for an Act. The Police answers to the Crown, i.e. the Government, not to the Courts. Should the government accept his diplomatic status, they could tell the Police to step aside.