• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-30-2012, 08:40 PM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evlar

Is this your only trick? Stating this over and over without merit?

This is just superfluous conversation. The point is these fantasies have no evidence grounding them in reality. In the end that's all that needs to be said.

A consequence of how governments and judicial systems work in the real world is that multiple people from multiple countries would need to know or be involved.

Originally Posted by radioheadrule83

The UK CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) has denied a Freedom of Information Act request in relation to communication with other States regarding the potential extradition of Assange. The Australian government has denied similar requests relating to possible extradition or temporary surrender of Assange to the US too. They did release a document eventually (right click > save as), after delaying and delaying, and breaching their own legal deadlines - and the document was filled with comical amounts of redaction.

The emails unearthed from US intel consultant, Stratfor, have already told us that there is a sealed indictment waiting for him in some countries... and if their attitude is indicative of how others in the intelligence community feel, that can't bode too well for him either. "The owner is a peacnik, he needs his head dunked in a toilet at gitmo"... another says he should be waterboarded until he gives up the AES key to the insurance file torrented a while back. Like he's memorised it!

Before the European Arrest Warrent, Sweden put out a Red Notice through Interpol -- Muammar Gaddafi had only achieved Orange. Either the Swedes REAAALLY wanna nail this guy, or they are bowing to international pressure to see him pinned.

His appeal against the EAW was because:

  • there was and still are no charges brought against him,
  • the timing was suspect, and
  • the EAW is based upon an investigation that he believes was carried out improperly.

He has lost that appeal now so he's gonna have to go out there and defend himself, but I personally won't be surprised if he doesn't get a fair trial, or if an indictment sees him whisked off to the US. He has said all along that he is prepared to face questioning -- in my view, he (quite understandably) doesn't want to be surrendered to a country and a system that may be rigged against him.

I don't blame him. Supposing the Swedes do conspire to hand him over to the US, or even temporarily surrender him for questioning, here is the kind of vitriol his enemies have for him:
"Assange is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands... Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" - Sarah Palin

"I would look at this very much as a military issue. With potentially military action against him and his organization." - Tony Shaffer, former DIA

"anything less than execution is too kind a penalty" - Mike Huckabee

"Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. ... I would not feel unhappy if Assange ’disappeared’." - Tom Flanagan, ex adviser to Canadian PM Stephen Harper, lecturer at University of Calgary.

""We’re at war. I hope Eric Holder, who’s a good man, will start showing some leadership here and get our laws in line with being at war." - Sen Lindsey Graham

[Assange should be] "prosecuted as a terrorist" - Rick Santorum

"I’d like to see a little drone hit Julian Assange. I think he is a bad man. If he lived in Britain 007 would take care of him." - Bill O' Reilly, Fox News

"I think the man is a [...] terrorist and [...] needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and if this becomes a problem you need to change the law." - Sen Mitch McConnell

"Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant [Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, torture]. WikiLeaks should be closed down permanently and decisively." - Newt Gingrich

"A dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I’m not for the death penalty, so... there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." - Bob Beckel, Fox News

"Julian Assange should be on a kill or capture list"
[he is] "a maggot", "guilty of sabotage, espionage, crimes against humanity, he should be killed"
,
"we have people in Guantanamo Bay that have done less harm to this country than Julian Assange",
"Wikileaks abets terror"
"we should execute leakers" - Lt Col. Ralph Peters

[Assange is] "a high tech terrorist" - Joe Biden

It'll be a fascinating case to be sure. The world will be watching.

Stratfor is widely considered a joke these days. Even die hard defenders of Wikileaks had to admit as much after the hyped dump of their emails. It was a bunch of guys reading newspapers and speculating; they didn't have real intel. We've discussed that organization here a lot, and plenty consider that release of emails by Wikileaks to be the reason they've faded away.

Originally Posted by empty vessel

You must not believe in the US government, then. Or any government for that matter. Plenty of secrets are kept and kept well.

By people employed with the expectation they would do so. They have been trained in some cases and granted security clearance in all cases. What they know and how they know it is controlled. We're not talking about those kinds of people.

And just to be clear, 99% of the secrets people with security clearance know are things like the operational ceiling of an F35 or what frequency a radio operates on. Mundane stuff, not illicit, illegal plots perpetrated by governments.
Slayven
gimme some o dat God-crafted alabaster greatness
(05-30-2012, 11:27 PM)
Slayven's Avatar
An Assange thread and no Jenga? The bastards finally got him.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
(05-30-2012, 11:53 PM)
BocoDragon's Avatar
This isn't a big implausible fantastic conspiracy... it's a very possible one. I'm not sure that spies manufactured the rape charge (although it really isn't farfetched. Spies exist. What do you think they do, if not this kind of thing?), but I am certain that once this rape charge appeared, central intelligence or whoever would have done everything in their power to make it stick.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-30-2012, 11:59 PM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by BocoDragon

This isn't a big implausible fantastic conspiracy... it's a very possible one. I'm not sure that spies manufactured the rape charge (although it really isn't farfetched. Spies exist. What do you think they do, if not this kind of thing?), but I am certain that once this rape charge appeared, central intelligence or whoever would have done everything in their power to make it stick.

By doing what though? And by who? Everyone? The warrant was upheld in three courts in front of 10 different judges.
Napoleonthechimp
Banned
(05-31-2012, 12:01 AM)
Napoleonthechimp's Avatar
Is a secret society that controls the world still secret if they're listed on the stock market?
Last edited by Napoleonthechimp; 05-31-2012 at 12:07 AM.
sangreal
Member
(05-31-2012, 12:07 AM)
sangreal's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sealda

Ehm, he was in Sweden for 3 weeks after his arrest in absence without the police or prosecutor taking him in for interrogation.

The second he set his foot in UK, they all of sudden sent out an european warrant...Insanely stupid...

This is not true. He wanted to travel to the UK and they agreed contingent on him returning for a scheduled interview with the police. After stepping foot in the UK he changed his mind and never returned for the interview.
radioheadrule83
Banned
(05-31-2012, 12:10 AM)
radioheadrule83's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

By doing what though? And by who? Everyone? The warrant was upheld in three courts in front of 10 different judges.

There's nothing wrong with the warrant itself, the appeal was over the nature of its issuance, and the nature of the original investigation / charges. Normally, if a member state prosecutor is calling someone to answer questions over a serious crime, an EAW is probably only fair. You don't need a grand multinational conspiracy to make one woman stick to her story and make one prosecutor fight for an EAW and a red notice though. And really, the red notice is the most shocking thing about his international pursuit to be honest. That shows that his legal pursuit hasn't been typical.
sangreal
Member
(05-31-2012, 12:11 AM)
sangreal's Avatar

Originally Posted by captainnapalm

She voluntarily had sex with him and he comes on to her afterwards. Big surprise. No threat of violence whatsover. Most countries there would not be a chance of a sexual assualt conviction.

While it remains to be proven, she claims she did not voluntarily have sex with him. Did you read the article? She wanted to stop it but he ripped her clothes off (repeatedly) and she eventually submitted.

Also, rubbing your naked dick on someone who is rejecting your advances is definitely sexual assault. No violence is required, and a past sexual history doesn't change it. Go ahead and try it on an ex. 'Afterwards' is also defined as days later here. He was living with her until he intimidated her so much she left her apartment, allegedly.
Last edited by sangreal; 05-31-2012 at 12:15 AM.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 12:14 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by radioheadrule83

There's nothing wrong with the warrant itself, the appeal was over the nature of its issuance, and the nature of the original investigation / charges. Normally, if a member state prosecutor is calling someone to answer questions over a serious crime, an EAW is probably only fair. You don't need a grand multinational conspiracy to make one woman stick to her story and make one prosecutor fight for an EAW and a red notice though. And really, the red notice is the most shocking thing about his international pursuit to be honest. That shows that his legal pursuit hasn't been typical.

Any conspiracy would be VERY concerned with making sure none of the appeals went through. These capable individuals willing to orchestrate this whole thing would just sit by and see what happens?

Also, do you know how many red notices were issues last year by Interpol?
Vilix
Member
(05-31-2012, 12:21 AM)
Vilix's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

The conspiracy "theorists" point is the whole thing is a fabrication and the warrant is baseless and improper. Maybe the judges are just stupid.

I thought a conspiracy theorist's point is that something, whatever it may be, is NOT a fabrication and should be investigated further. Sorta like what ufologists and JFK assassination speculators are always bitching about.
radioheadrule83
Banned
(05-31-2012, 12:23 AM)
radioheadrule83's Avatar

Originally Posted by sangreal

This is not true. He wanted to travel to the UK and they agreed contingent on him returning for a scheduled interview with the police. After stepping foot in the UK he changed his mind and never returned for the interview.

This isn't exactly true either, unless you've got a source:

1 September 2010

Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says she is reopening the rape investigation against Mr Assange, eleven days after a chief prosecutor announced the arrest warrant had been dropped. Ms Ny is also head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular.

"There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed," she says in a statement. "Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape."

Ms Ny says the investigation into the molestation claim will also be extended. She tells AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure), but not so out of the ordinary either".

18 October 2010

The Wikileaks founder is denied residency in Sweden. No reason is given, although an official on Sweden's Migration Board tells the AFP news agency "he did not fulfil the requirements".

18 November 2010

Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available for questioning.

Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange return to Sweden.

20 November 2010

Swedish police issue an international arrest warrant for Mr Assange via Interpol.

30 November 2010

Interpol issues a "red notice" for Mr Assange, asking people to contact police if they have any information about his whereabouts.

Again, for context here, the late Gadaffi only ever achieved an Orange notice - even during the support of the Libyan rebellion.

8 December 2010

The Wikileaks founder gives himself up to London police and is taken to an extradition hearing at a Westminster court. He is remanded in custody pending another hearing on 14 December.

8 February 2011

Wikileaks' Assange inquiry by Sweden 'improper'

Swedish prosecutors did not follow "proper procedure" while investigating rape claims against Julian Assange, a UK extradition hearing was told.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12392781

You can find the full timeline of events, including the appeals here:

BBC Assange Timeline
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
empty vessel
Member
(05-31-2012, 12:27 AM)
empty vessel's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

Any conspiracy would be VERY concerned with making sure none of the appeals went through. These capable individuals willing to orchestrate this whole thing would just sit by and see what happens?

Also, do you know how many red notices were issues last year by Interpol?

I think you might be confusing political pressure with conspiracy. Political pressure exists. Influence is exerted. Various actions are taken. It's the very nature of political power.
Karma Kramer
Banned
(05-31-2012, 12:30 AM)
This whole thing is a bunch of nonsense... if you can't see how the media and US government manipulated the public into hating Assange and if don't think they would use dirty tactics to put him behind bars and end his organization... I really don't know what to say.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 12:30 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by empty vessel

I think you might be confusing political pressure with conspiracy. Political pressure exists. Influence is exerted. Various actions are taken. It's the very nature of political power.

Well orchestrated, simultaneous political power exerted without fail on multiple people in multiple countries. Not impossible, certainly. Just no reason to be believed.
Slayven
gimme some o dat God-crafted alabaster greatness
(05-31-2012, 12:32 AM)
Slayven's Avatar

Originally Posted by Karma Kramer

This whole thing is a bunch of nonsense... if you can't see how the media and US government manipulated the public into hating Assange and if don't think they would use dirty tactics to put him behind bars and end his organization... I really don't know what to say.

The public largely didn't care.
Evlar
Banned
(05-31-2012, 12:34 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

Well orchestrated, simultaneous political power exerted without fail on multiple people in multiple countries. Not impossible, certainly. Just no reason to be believed.

For the final time: You are apparently the only one currently active in this thread who believes this is necessary. You appear to be purposefully seeding a fallacy- a straw man- by over and over again stating that your opponents must hold X to be true, then attempting to demonstrate that X is false... never mind that your opponents state each time that they do not in fact hold X.

Again, since apparently it literally cannot be said enough: It is perfect possible to believe there is something rotten in the state of Denmark- err, Sweden- without stating that any actors in any other nation are behaving atypically. Not the UK, not the secretary of Interpol, not even the US.

I have NO TROUBLE WHATSOEVER believing that the members of the UK court could have reached this same judgment in an identical case involving a warrant for questioning in Sweden over a rape allegation with John Q. Nobody as the suspect.
Last edited by Evlar; 05-31-2012 at 12:39 AM.
radioheadrule83
Banned
(05-31-2012, 12:36 AM)
radioheadrule83's Avatar

Originally Posted by sangreal

While it remains to be proven, she claims she did not voluntarily have sex with him. Did you read the article? She wanted to stop it but he ripped her clothes off (repeatedly) and she eventually submitted.

Also, rubbing your naked dick on someone who is rejecting your advances is definitely sexual assault. No violence is required, and a past sexual history doesn't change it. Go ahead and try it on an ex. 'Afterwards' is also defined as days later here. He was living with her until he intimidated her so much she left her apartment, allegedly.

I think you are simplifying the witness statements to be honest. There are a number of witnesses, and the two who originally raised the charges both seemingly agreed or acquiesced in having sex with him, attended the same parties thereafter, and attempted to blackmail him into getting an STD check before going to the police. Anna Ardin removed positive tweets about Assange and the party she had thrown for him, which she had posted after the supposed rape. Their mutual friend, Harold, although believing Anna to be credible - testifies that Assange expressed shock and denial throughout.

I think he needs to answer the charges, absolutely, but I think this needs to be addressed and investigated also:

Assange's defence team had so far been provided by prosecutors with only incomplete evidence, he said. "There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going to the police and to Espressen and raise the issue of political motivation behind the presentation of these complaints. He [Hurtig] has been precluded from making notes or copying them.

"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.

"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...assange-sweden
Karma Kramer
Banned
(05-31-2012, 12:40 AM)

Originally Posted by Slayven

The public largely didn't care.

Mainly because the attention focused when Wikileaks first started publishing documents was that it was the "biggest" military leak in history. Making it sound as if Wikileaks dumped all these documents onto the internet containing who knows what. (900,000 or something ridiculous). When in fact it was only a couple hundred then a couple thousand. Then the Guardian messed up with their security as Wikileaks started allowing certain journalist organizations to sort through more documents... and a large amount of documents were potentially leaked for the public. Ironically though the media described the leak as intentionally done by Wikileaks despite their being no court case or concrete evidence to prove the claim. Slowly but surely the ignorant masses bought into the idea that Wikileaks is anti-American or a terrorist organization. My opinion of course is that transparency as long as it does not put lives at risk is key to a democracy. And more coverage on the destruction and potential problems of America's wars in the middle east is important because ultimately those wars have done more bad than good.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 12:45 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evlar

For the final time: You are apparently the only one currently active in this thread who believes this is necessary. You appear to be purposefully seeding a fallacy- a straw man- by over and over again stating that your opponents must hold X to be true, then attempting to demonstrate that X is false... never mind that your opponents state each time that they do not in fact hold X.

Again, since apparently it literally cannot be said enough: It is perfect possible to believe there is something rotten in the state of Denmark- err, Sweden- without stating that any actors in any other nation are behaving atypically. Not the UK, not the secretary of Interpol, not even the US.

But plenty here ARE stating those people are all involved in the grand conspiracy to take down an irrelevant egotist.

A scenario in which Swedish prosecutors simply act inappropriately given the evidence they have means that, specifically barring corruption, everyone else is bad at their jobs. Interpol for issuing the red notice(of which over 7000 were issued last year, by the way) and multiple courts and multiple judges in the UK for not recognizing any of it. A scenario that also has no evidence supporting it.

EDIT

If the evidence and circumstances presented to the UK courts and to Interpol satisfy conditions you consider appropriate, what basis do you have to suggest Swedish prosecutors are acting improperly?
The Albatross
Member
(05-31-2012, 12:49 AM)
The Albatross's Avatar

Originally Posted by jaxword

If by "the way its supposed to" you mean "a tool of revenge," then yes, the system worked.

You have to seriously be in denial to not realize this has been a smear campaign against Assange from the start (not that he's a very good person to begin with and practically gave them the ammo).

I wonder if you'd feel the same if it were, say, a wealthy businessman charged with rape in another country. Say, like, the CFO of British Petroleum or something.
Evlar
Banned
(05-31-2012, 12:50 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

But plenty here ARE stating those people are all involved in the grand conspiracy to take down an irrelevant egotist.

A scenario in which Swedish prosecutors simply act inappropriately given the evidence they have means that, specifically barring corruption, everyone else is bad at their jobs. Interpol for issuing the red notice(of which over 7000 were issued last year, by the way) and multiple courts and multiple judges in the UK for not recognizing any of it. A scenario that also has no evidence supporting it.

But it's not Interpol's or the UK's job to do those things. Assange is not British; the UK has no responsibility to defend him against Sweden's claim, except the cursory investigation over whether or not there is a case for asylum. Interpol's whole PURPOSE is to post up quasi-arrest warrants or notices from member countries to pool efforts; they do not conduct investigations of the merits of those nations' claims.

The only other country which might be directly involved is Australia... which is, apparently, accepting Sweden's account that this is an internal criminal matter.

EDIT: And I will say that if Sweden actually did something shocking, like turning over Assange to the US, the shit would smite the fan in the UK. There would be a lot of argument over whether this court should have seen that coming, and what that means for UK-Swedish relations.
Last edited by Evlar; 05-31-2012 at 01:04 AM.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
(05-31-2012, 12:53 AM)
BocoDragon's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Albatross

I wonder if you'd feel the same if it were, say, a wealthy businessman charged with rape in another country. Say, like, the CFO of British Petroleum or something.

Incorrect analogy in some sense... no one wanted the CFO of BP silenced. I think he'd have the same suspicions about anyone with a rape charge that powerful people would love to have disappear.
IrrelevantNotch
Banned
(05-31-2012, 12:55 AM)
IrrelevantNotch's Avatar

Originally Posted by radioheadrule83

I think you are simplifying the witness statements to be honest. There are a number of witnesses, and the two who originally raised the charges both seemingly agreed or acquiesced in having sex with him, attended the same parties thereafter, and attempted to blackmail him into getting an STD check before going to the police. Anna Ardin removed positive tweets about Assange and the party she had thrown for him, which she had posted after the supposed rape. Their mutual friend, Harold, although believing Anna to be credible - testifies that Assange expressed shock and denial throughout.

I think he needs to answer the charges, absolutely, but I think this needs to be addressed and investigated also:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...assange-sweden

shocking
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 01:03 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evlar

But it's not Interpol's or the UK's job to do those things. Assange is not British; the UK has no responsibility to defend him against Sweden's claim, except the cursory investigation over whether or not there is a case for asylum. Interpol's whole PURPOSE is to post up quasi-arrest warrants or notices from member countries to pool efforts; they do not conduct investigations of the merits of those nations' claims.

Interpol only issues notices that fulfill specific requirements. A request that violated human rights, as alleged by Assange, would not be processed by Interpol if they came to the same conclusion.

The UK courts did do those things. It made its own judgments, in three separate courts, about the allegations and their ability to satisfy requirements consistent with the laws of the UK.

Again, if the evidence and circumstances presented to the UK courts and to Interpol satisfy conditions you(and they) consider appropriate, what basis do you have to suggest Swedish prosecutors are acting improperly? Surely a case based solely and obviously on corruption and attempts to silence this man would fail to meet those conditions.
Evlar
Banned
(05-31-2012, 01:09 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

Interpol only issues notices that fulfill specific requirements. A request that violated human rights, as alleged by Assange, would not be processed by Interpol if they came to the same conclusion.

The UK courts did do those things. It made its own judgments, in three separate courts, about the allegations and their ability to satisfy requirements consistent with the laws of the UK.

Again, if the evidence and circumstances presented to the UK courts and to Interpol satisfy conditions you(and they) consider appropriate, what basis do you have to suggest Swedish prosecutors are acting improperly? Surely a case based solely and obviously on corruption and attempts to silence this man would fail to meet those conditions.

You don't understand. I'm saying that the UK court literally could not make a determination on the state of the case in Sweden, except on very narrow points of law (like whether the Swedish warrant was legal). I'm not a court, I'm an observer commenting on the internet, and so I have no such restrictions on the kinds of statements I can make.

And, before you bring it up, I agree that the warrant is legal. Bizarre, but legal.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 01:17 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evlar

You don't understand. I'm saying that the UK court literally could not make a determination on the state of the case in Sweden, except very narrow points of law (like whether the Swedish warrant was legal).

And, before you bring it up, I agree that the warrant is legal. Bizarre, but legal.

No, neither body tried the case but any clear indication that Swedish prosecutors were fabricating, exaggerating or overstepping their authority could have prompted either Interpol or the UK courts to deny requests.
delirium
Member
(05-31-2012, 01:18 AM)
delirium's Avatar
Before this argument gets out of hand, here's the full investigation (http://cryptome.org/0003/ja-sex-docs.zip) of Assange's case. Someone leaked it from Sweden and it contains Assange's personal information but since Assange's stance on leaking, I'm sure he doesn't mind people reading it.

Here's a translation I found online (I'm unsure of its accurate or not).

Person S:

...They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he'd put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again. She'd been nagging about condoms all night long. She's never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn't say when he'd done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards....

Person A:

...Assange asked after a while what Anna was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Assange released her arms and put on the condom Anna got for him. Anna felt a huge unexpressed reluctance from Assange to using a condom which led to her getting the feeling he didn't put on the condom she'd given him. She therefore reached down with her hand to Assange's penis to check if he'd really put the condom on. She could feel that the edge of the condom was where it should be at the root of Assange's penis. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says she thought 'hope it's over soon'.
Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his penis with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.
After a while Assange ejaculates inside her and thereafter withdraws. Anna saw that the condom didn't have semen in it when Assange took it off. When Anna began moving her body she noticed how things were running out of her vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's semen. She pointed this out for Assange but he denied this and told her it was she who was wet with her own juices. Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broken the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation. In answer to a question Anna says she didn't look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it. She says that even the bed sheets used on that occasion are most likely still in her hamper....

Seems to me there's enough evidence for a court to decide of its rape or not.
Evlar
Banned
(05-31-2012, 01:26 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

No, neither body tried the case but any clear indication that Swedish prosecutors were fabricating, exaggerating or overstepping their authority could have prompted either Interpol or the UK courts to deny requests.

The British probably feel they need to give Sweden the benefit of the doubt. I don't have any obligation to do the same.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 01:30 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evlar

The British probably feel they need to give Sweden the benefit of the doubt. I don't have any obligation to do the same.

So again, multiple courts and a handful of judges just went "meh" and let it go through. That's your argument. And your evidence to support this position is...?

Can you cite what specifically you feel the UK court should have picked up on in the evidence to suggest to them it's all an overzealous bit of politically motivated Swedish prosecutor fabrication?
Evlar
Banned
(05-31-2012, 01:31 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

So again, multiple courts and a handful of judges just went "meh" and let it go through. That's your argument. And your evidence to support this position is...?

Can you cite what specifically you feel the UK court should have picked up on in the evidence to suggest to them it's all an overzealous bit of politically motivated Swedish prosecutor fabrication?

No, that's YOUR argument. Why you persist on attributing it to other people mystifies me.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 01:32 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evlar

No, that's YOUR argument. Why you persist on attributing it to other people mystifies me.

State your argument. Why do the UK courts have to give them the benefit of the doubt unless you feel the case or evidence is lacking or perhaps a fabrication in its entirety?
Evlar
Banned
(05-31-2012, 01:34 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

State your argument. Why do the UK courts have to give them the benefit of the doubt unless you feel the case or evidence is lacking or perhaps a fabrication in its entirety?

... What? "Giving the benefit of the doubt" implies trust. That's all I'm saying. The British probably feel that the Swedish are trustworthy.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 01:36 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evlar

... What? "Giving the benefit of the doubt" implies trust. That's all I'm saying. The British probably feel that the Swedish are trustworthy.

And so they didn't exercise their duty to examine the claims and judge them against their own standards of evidence. Is that your claim? Why is this a claim unless you believe the evidence wouldn't stand up if they did so?

Please, tell me what your argument is here.
Evlar
Banned
(05-31-2012, 01:41 AM)

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

And so they didn't exercise their duty to examine the claims and judge them against their own standards of evidence. Is that your claim? Why is this a claim unless you believe the evidence wouldn't stand up if they did so?

NO. I've said it at least five times no. NO. Jesus.

Please, tell me what your argument is here.

That the bizarre nature of Sweden's actions- specifically elevating a rape charge to an Interpol red letter, when that country very rarely resorts to Interpol at all- is precisely the sort of thing that the UK court is constitutionally incapable of considering. A British court is not going to tell Sweden that it should not pursue possible rapists.

I can say that it is bizarre. A court of extradition really can't, under any normal circumstances, particularly when the country in question is a close ally.

Notice there is nothing at all here about the merits of the case against Assange, only the specifics of the way the Swedish prosecutor has pursued it.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 01:50 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Evlar

That the bizarre nature of Sweden's actions- specifically elevating a rape charge to an Interpol red letter, when that country very rarely resorts to Interpol at all- is precisely the sort of thing that the UK court is constitutionally incapable of considering. A British court is not going to tell Sweden that it should not pursue possible rapists.

I can say that it is bizarre. A court of extradition really can't, under any normal circumstances, particularly when the country in question is a close ally.

Notice there is nothing at all here about the merits of the case against Assange, only the specifics of the way the Swedish prosecutor has pursued it.

Over 7000 red notices were issued by Interpol last year. Of the 280 currently listed on the site(notices are removed once a person is apprehended) Sweden has 21 of them, many of which are for things like theft and drug related crime. There are 188 countries that can request red notices.

Why do you believe it was bizarre or unusual for Sweden to issue a request for this notice? And if it truly is bizarre, what are you suggesting this action points to?
Jenga
Banned
(05-31-2012, 01:53 AM)
Jenga's Avatar

Originally Posted by Slayven

An Assange thread and no Jenga? The bastards finally got him.

i have arrived
markot
Junior Member
(05-31-2012, 01:54 AM)
markot's Avatar
You guys are acting like Sweden is some kind of banana republic >_>

Any reason to believe their judiciary is going to go all political over this and screw him over?
radioheadrule83
Banned
(05-31-2012, 01:56 AM)
radioheadrule83's Avatar
Evlar is speaking perfectly plainly, I don't know why you have struggled so much to understand what he's saying. I can only assume that for sake of argument, you are equivocating -- wishing to paint those who question the Swedish prosecutor's motive or justify Assange's right to appeals as people who believe in some grand, unrelenting and unrealistic conspiracy involving multiple people, parties and countries.

All anyone has suggested all along is that the turn of events leading to the complainants going to the police is suspicious, the timing of his warrant and the strength of the warrant were unusual aberrations from standard practice in a high profile case, and that there may be some pressure - overt, intended or otherwise - upon the Swedes, and on the part of the Ms Ny - to see him convicted.
Jenga
Banned
(05-31-2012, 01:57 AM)
Jenga's Avatar

Originally Posted by radioheadrule83

Evlar is speaking perfectly plainly, I don't know why you have struggled so much to understand what he's saying. I can only assume that for sake of argument, you are equivocating -- wishing to paint those who question the Swedish prosecutor's motive or justify Assange's right to appeals as people who believe in some grand, unrelenting and unrealistic conspiracy involving multiple people, parties and countries.

All anyone has suggested all along is that the turn of events leading to the complainants going to the police is suspicious, the timing of his warrant and the strength of the warrant were unusual aberrations from standard practice in a high profile case, and that there may be some pressure - overt, intended or otherwise - upon the Swedes, and on the part of the Ms Ny - to see him convicted.

why are you defending a rapist
Slayven
gimme some o dat God-crafted alabaster greatness
(05-31-2012, 01:57 AM)
Slayven's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jenga

i have arrived

Finally, we can get to the bottom of this through your in depth investigating.
Tomat
Member
(05-31-2012, 01:58 AM)
Tomat's Avatar
How come this is such a big deal? If he's guilty then he'll be punished, if not, he'll go free.
Jenga
Banned
(05-31-2012, 01:58 AM)
Jenga's Avatar

Originally Posted by Slayven

Finally, we can get to the bottom of this through your in depth investigating.

it's open and shut as far as this cat is concerned

assange is a rapist and so is possibly everyone trying to defending his rapey actions
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
(05-31-2012, 02:00 AM)
Flying_Phoenix's Avatar
This fucking thread...
radioheadrule83
Banned
(05-31-2012, 02:01 AM)
radioheadrule83's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

Over 7000 red notices were issued by Interpol last year. Of the 280 currently listed on the site(notices are removed once a person is apprehended) Sweden has 21 of them, many of which are for things like theft and drug related crime. There are 188 countries that can request red notices.

Why do you believe it was bizarre or unusual for Sweden to issue a request for this notice? And if it truly is bizarre, what are you suggesting this action points to?

They are typically issued for wanted criminals. Assange is wanted for questioning, yes. He offered himself to the Swedish embassy in London immediately upon the Swedish warrant being issued, he was not and is not yet charged with any crime, and even the EAW is only to bring him in for questioning. A red notice in these circumstances (filing the most urgent international arrest warrant available 2 days after saying he was wanted for questioning) is a disproportionate and unusual act for such a high profile figure, given he had not fled, had been denied residency in Sweden, was living in an EU country, and still very much in the public eye. Ny re-opening the case, was by her own admission, unusual too. You can point to the red notice stats all you want, but nowhere among them will you find another scenario quite like Assange's.
Last edited by radioheadrule83; 05-31-2012 at 02:03 AM.
sangreal
Member
(05-31-2012, 02:01 AM)
sangreal's Avatar

Originally Posted by radioheadrule83

This isn't exactly true either, unless you've got a source:

Fortunately, I do.

The Guardian understands that the recent Swedish decision to apply for an international arrest warrant followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor. Assange's supporters have denied this, but Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...assange-sweden
Slayven
gimme some o dat God-crafted alabaster greatness
(05-31-2012, 02:01 AM)
Slayven's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jenga

it's open and shut as far as this cat is concerned

assange is a rapist and so is possibly everyone trying to defending his rapey actions

So no Cabal? No 5 Jewish bankers? Greys? Uganda Lizardmen? Walt Disney;s frozen head?
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 02:02 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by radioheadrule83

Evlar is speaking perfectly plainly, I don't know why you have struggled so much to understand what he's saying. I can only assume that for sake of argument, you are equivocating -- wishing to paint those who question the Swedish prosecutor's motive or justify Assange's right to appeals as people who believe in some grand, unrelenting and unrealistic conspiracy involving multiple people, parties and countries.

All anyone has suggested all along is that the turn of events leading to the complainants going to the police is suspicious, the timing of his warrant and the strength of the warrant were unusual aberrations from standard practice in a high profile case, and that there may be some pressure - overt, intended or otherwise - upon the Swedes, and on the part of the Ms Ny - to see him convicted.

This is the equivalent of a fox news headline with a question mark. "Just askin questions!"

What evidence does anyone have? The issuance of the red notice doesn't even appear to be out of the ordinary in any way. It's simply stated and everyone assumes it's true. Why?

This started with people implying a conspiracy was afoot. The US wanted Assange in the states, so they conspired to make it happen by orchestrating a smear campaign. I commented on this. Now we have some other people coming by saying how maybe it's just Sweden being weird. Not suggesting any kind of conspiracy, of course!, just askin questions! No one offers anything other than "hmmmmm!" as evidence for why they might think any of this.
Jenga
Banned
(05-31-2012, 02:02 AM)
Jenga's Avatar

Originally Posted by Slayven

So no Cabal? No 5 Jewish bankers? Greys? Uganda Lizardmen? Walt Disney;s frozen head?

no, he just fucked a girl when she said no

it's rape


done

bam
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(05-31-2012, 02:03 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by radioheadrule83

They are typically issued for wanted criminals. Assange is wanted for questioning, yes. He offered himself to the Swedish embassy in London immediately upon the Swedish warrant being issued, he was not and is not yet charged with any crime, and even the EAW is only to bring him in for questioning. A red notice in these circumstances, filing his arrest warrant 2 days after saying he was wanted for questioning is a disproportionate and unusual act for such a high profile figure. Ny re-opening the case, was by her own admission, unusual. You can point to the red notice stats all you want, but nowhere among them will you find another scenario quite like Assange's.

All of this according to...?
radioheadrule83
Banned
(05-31-2012, 02:11 AM)
radioheadrule83's Avatar

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

This is the equivalent of a fox news headline with a question mark. "Just askin questions!"

Please. More equivocating. Stop insulting GAFs intelligence.

Originally Posted by KHarvey16

What evidence does anyone have? The issuance of the red notice doesn't even appear to be out of the ordinary in any way. It's simply stated and everyone assumes it's true. Why?

I suspect we will fall into an endless game of burden-of-proof here, where you suggest I prove its out of the ordinary -- I would ask you to prove that it is ordinary. Find me another case like this one, where a high profile public figure - not yet charged - was denied residency in a country, and the same country then issued the strongest form of international arrest warrant against him. Due to his non-availability for questioning. In a country where they said he couldn't live. In any way, shape or form - find me another case such as this one.

Speaking of burden of proof -- sorry Jenga, Assange is innocent until proven guilty.

This started with people implying a conspiracy was afoot. The US wanted Assange in the states, so they conspired to make it happen by orchestrating a smear campaign. I commented on this. Now we have some other people coming by saying how maybe it's just Sweden being weird. Not suggesting any kind of conspiracy, of course!, just askin questions!

Do you know any other way to enter discussion with people other than deciding on their behalf what their views are and what they're trying to say? Or without resorting to false equivalences? I suspect not, but I'd really like to know.

Thread Tools