PDA

View Full Version : Julian Assange



Beefster
20-06-2012, 10:01 AM
Claims political asylum from a country with a shocking human rights and free speech record....

Brave freedom fighter or hypocritical, narcissistic, lying sex-pest?

Kato
20-06-2012, 10:11 AM
hypocritical, narcissistic

Seems like both of those.

Dunno whose freedom he's supposedly fighting for.

Future17
20-06-2012, 02:46 PM
Claims political asylum from a country with a shocking human rights and free speech record....

Brave freedom fighter or hypocritical, narcissistic, lying sex-pest?

From, or with? There is certainly an irony about him picking a nation like Ecuador, but at the same time, the UK and US do not have great free speech records in matters relating to the disclosure of documents.

FWIW, I know the charges he is dodging relate to sex crimes in Sweden, but many believe the matters to be related.

Beefster
20-06-2012, 03:18 PM
From, or with? There is certainly an irony about him picking a nation like Ecuador, but at the same time, the UK and US do not have great free speech records in matters relating to the disclosure of documents.

FWIW, I know the charges he is dodging relate to sex crimes in Sweden, but many believe the matters to be related.

Ecuador grant asylum so Assange has requested it from them.

Many can believe what they want but the courts tend to go with facts. He's been accused of rape by two Swedish women. He's doing everything he can to avoid facing the allegations.

Future17
20-06-2012, 05:33 PM
Ecuador grant asylum so Assange has requested it from them.

Many can believe what they want but the courts tend to go with facts. He's been accused of rape by two Swedish women. He's doing everything he can to avoid facing the allegations.

I know. Both are right but I was just being facetious to make a wider point. I probably shouldn't try to be such a smartarse.

I agree that he should face trial for the sex crime allegations. However, to pretend that there's not potentially more to this than meets the eye would be ignoring hundreds of years of shady governmental operations.

Eyrie
20-06-2012, 06:55 PM
His defence against the sex attack allegations seems to be two-fold - the predictable "she wanted it" coupled with a claim that well known fascist nation Sweden will immediately hand him over to the US for execution. This despite the fact that the UK has a supine attitude to US extradition requests so he is in more danger here, but no such request has been made.

I like the irony of him seeking asylum from Ecuador but the sooner he stands trial in Sweden the better.

khib70
21-06-2012, 10:18 AM
Claims political asylum from a country with a shocking human rights and free speech record....

Brave freedom fighter or hypocritical, narcissistic, lying sex-pest?

The bit in bold for me. Contender with Jimmy Carr for hypocritical helmet of the week

--------
21-07-2012, 12:33 AM
Ecuador grant asylum so Assange has requested it from them.

Many can believe what they want but the courts tend to go with facts. He's been accused of rape by two Swedish women. He's doing everything he can to avoid facing the allegations.


You have more faith in human justice than I have, Beefster.

I have no information regarding his guilt or innocence, but I do question the sequence of events whereby a man who's made himself a complete pain in the backside to the US government and a large number of powerful corporate bodies in the West and in China fairly promptly afterwards is accused of rape. I'm rather put in mind of one Emmanuel Goldstein and the Two Minutes' Hate in 1984.

As the great investigative journalist Claude Cockburn once said, "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied."

Have you seen John Pilger's 2010 film "The War You Don't See"? There's an interview with Assange on it - in particular discussing the gun camera film of the shooting of the 2 Reuters journalists and a number of other civilians (including two children) in Baghdad on 12 July 2007. Worth seeing and listening to.

Betty Boop
21-07-2012, 10:53 AM
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1644-how-julian-assanges-private-life-is-used-to-conceal-the-real-triumph-of-wikileaks

--------
21-07-2012, 11:10 AM
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1644-how-julian-assanges-private-life-is-used-to-conceal-the-real-triumph-of-wikileaks


Thanks. Very fine essay/article.

BTW - Patrick Cockburn is Claud Cockburn's son - one apple that fell right beside the tree. :top marks

Betty Boop
16-08-2012, 12:31 PM
Julian Assange granted Asylum by Ecuador.

steakbake
16-08-2012, 12:55 PM
Julian Assange granted Asylum by Ecuador.

Not sure how they're going to get him to Ecuador. This may end in a farcical situation of Assange living permanently under house arrest at the Ecuadorian embassy. Or some kind of internationally embarrassing episode where we ineptly invade the embassy.

VickMackie
16-08-2012, 01:27 PM
Not sure how they're going to get him to Ecuador. This may end in a farcical situation of Assange living permanently under house arrest at the Ecuadorian embassy. Or some kind of internationally embarrassing episode where we ineptly invade the embassy.

It would be poor show to storm the embassy IMO. We can't pick and choose when we respect them.

Although the colony statement from Ecuador was needless.

There's a lot of politics going on here. The Americans will want him back to Sweden so we will bend over.

Perhaps the guy who went hunting through the amercan database should try and pitch up there as well.

CropleyWasGod
16-08-2012, 01:30 PM
Not sure how they're going to get him to Ecuador. This may end in a farcical situation of Assange living permanently under house arrest at the Ecuadorian embassy. Or some kind of internationally embarrassing episode where we ineptly invade the embassy.

They would grant him diplomatic status, wouldn't they, in order to get him out of the UK?

steakbake
16-08-2012, 01:49 PM
They would grant him diplomatic status, wouldn't they, in order to get him out of the UK?

The gist of the letter from the UK to the Ecuadorian ambassador was along the lines of diplomatic status is simply a convention and not a legal obligation.

Hibbylad86
16-08-2012, 01:55 PM
They would grant him diplomatic status, wouldn't they, in order to get him out of the UK?

Surely if Britain revokes Equador's diplomatic status then they cannot grant him any status. The only solution I can see to this is if Sweden give a legal commitment not to extradite Assange to the U.S.A or in the more exterme the Swedes agree that he can be tried in this country or AN other.

--------
16-08-2012, 03:02 PM
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/1644-how-julian-assanges-private-life-is-used-to-conceal-the-real-triumph-of-wikileaks


:agree: Wikileaks is a real threat to the ability of governments to control the flow of information from places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is why I'm so suspicious of the whole legal framework surrounding Assange.

The fact is that the UK and US media do not and cannot give their readers an accurate and honest picture of how the war in Afghanistan is being conducted. Reporters 'embedded' among the troops go where they're told to go, report what they're told to report, photograph what they're told to photograph, and go nowhere, report nothing, photograph nothing except where and what they're told to. Most of the others stay in the 'safe' areas and report what they get through the official agencies. Occasionally someone steps out of the party line and we discover that the war (sorry - conflict/insurgency) isn't going QUITE as well as the official line's been claiming.

The very fact that the British media have made a hugely greater fuss about Assange's alleged personal faults than they ever have about the murder of 20 people, including two journalists, by the crew of a US helicopter gunship on the 12 July 2007 says it all. The evidence for that shooting has been made public - by Wikileaks - as has evidence for the routine torture of civilian prisoners by the US and British troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the torture evidence, I would refer you to two major documentaries - John Pilger's "The War You Don't See", and Alex Gibney's "Taxi To The Dark Side". The gunship murders can be watched in detail through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

When the old Soviet Union wanted to 'neutralise' dissidents and critics they said they were insane and sent them to psychiatric hospitals to be tormented by the doctors and psychiatrists there. I have the nasty feeling that the US are sufficiently annoyed by Wikileaks to have engineered the charges against him to pull him into the Swedish legal system preparatory to making a determined bid for his extradition to the US, where he faces goodness knows what in the way of prosecution.

That is, of course, if they actually bring him to trial.

But then, the US would NEVER just lock up a man and for years and years without bringing him to trial, would they?

THAT only happens in places like CUBA. :rolleyes:

As for Ecuador's 'needless' comment about colonialism - the US has never treated any Latin American republics as if they were US colonies, have they? Panama? Chile? Colombia? Bolivia? Nicaragua? Cuba itself?

Thought not. http://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/rolleyes2.gif

lucky
16-08-2012, 03:41 PM
We must respect embassies but this man is facing two counts of rape. His own lawyer said he participated on disrespectful and distasteful sex. Ecuador have abused the role of an embassy but hopefully the UK does not breech diplomatic agreements

CropleyWasGod
16-08-2012, 03:43 PM
We must respect embassies but this man is facing two counts of rape. His own lawyer said he participated on disrespectful and distasteful sex. Ecuador have abused the role of an embassy but hopefully the UK does not breech diplomatic agreements

Despite the efforts of some of the more radical feminists, particularly in Sweden, these are not yet offences. :greengrin

heretoday
16-08-2012, 04:02 PM
It's now a massive conundrum this one. The government's tactic of trying to get around diplomatic status by invoking an old legal wrinkle would suggest that they know Assange is likely to be spirited away to the US and they approve of that. After all, what the hell would it matter normally if some guy seeks to hide in a foreign embassy?

On the other hand he should face his accusers in court if he has any self-regard.

hibsbollah
16-08-2012, 04:06 PM
We debated this before when the story first broke, but Assange clearly has a case to answer in Sweden, not exactly notorious as a US puppet state from where unreasonable deportation to Washington would be likely. I find it extremely distasteful how holy cows of the Left like John Pilger are charging about screeching that Assange is innocent of rape. How do they know? And since when do British liberals and feminists side up to denounce alleged rape victims in Sweden? only in this case.

--------
16-08-2012, 04:19 PM
We must respect embassies but this man is facing two counts of rape. His own lawyer said he participated on disrespectful and distasteful sex. Ecuador have abused the role of an embassy but hopefully the UK does not breech diplomatic agreements




For which he has not yet been tried. Innocent until proven guilty?

The question isn't whether the sex was disrespectful or distasteful. The question is whether, in each case, it was illegal.

These are questions for a court of law to decide.

Personally, I would say that if the allegations are true, Assange did indeed behave in a thoroughly distasteful and disrespectful manner - there are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect ***** against her body (Wikipedia).

It's fair to say also that in this country these charges if proven constitute rape and sexual assault. But these charges have to be tested in a court of law, and only then can it be determined whether Assange is guilty or not.

However, the other question is whether, once Assange is in the legal process in Sweden, the US will then put on the pressure to have him extradited to face their courts on charges which, if they were to linked to terrorism, carry (potentially) the death-penalty. If he were found guilty of the rape and sexual assault charges, the Americans might very well fancy their chances of getting a convicted prisoner extradited to the US to stand trial on the charges relating to the release of classified material on Wikileaks - Gitmo here we come? There are lots and lots of people in the US who have already declared him to be guilty and who will surely demand that he be tried on charges relating to terrorism - which is where the death-penalty and a whole lot of other cans of worms come in. I don't see how anyone could expect him to receive a fair trial in the US now.

Bear in mind that there have already been threats against his life from right-wing sources in the US and Canada; that Mike Huckabee has called for his "execution"; and that a Fox News business affairs show hosted a discussion ending in a general agreement that he should be illegally shot. (There have been other, less high-profile threats against him as well.)

I'm not surprised he's playing hard-to-get with the authorities.

One Day Soon
16-08-2012, 04:31 PM
I'm with Beefster on this one.


:agree: Wikileaks is a real threat to the ability of governments to control the flow of information from places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is why I'm so suspicious of the whole legal framework surrounding Assange.

No it isn't. Social media, the internet and modern communications are a real threat to the ability of governments to control the flow of information, which is why the Chinese and others so closely control their use where possible.

The fact is that the UK and US media do not and cannot give their readers an accurate and honest picture of how the war in Afghanistan is being conducted. Reporters 'embedded' among the troops go where they're told to go, report what they're told to report, photograph what they're told to photograph, and go nowhere, report nothing, photograph nothing except where and what they're told to. Most of the others stay in the 'safe' areas and report what they get through the official agencies. Occasionally someone steps out of the party line and we discover that the war (sorry - conflict/insurgency) isn't going QUITE as well as the official line's been claiming.

That's like saying that only Sky subscribers get to watch Sky covered Hibs games because there are no other routes people can use to view them. The body bags give us a fairly good indication of how Iraq or Afghanistan is going. Its not as though there is no news source other than government related/controlled channels. Al Jazeera for example present an alternative view.

The very fact that the British media have made a hugely greater fuss about Assange's alleged personal faults than they ever have about the murder of 20 people, including two journalists, by the crew of a US helicopter gunship on the 12 July 2007 says it all. The evidence for that shooting has been made public - by Wikileaks - as has evidence for the routine torture of civilian prisoners by the US and British troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

It doesn't say 'it all' at all. Assange went out of his way to make himself the story and, as with politicians, footballers and other celebrities, once you put yourself in play like that you become a fat target for the take-down by the media when your fall comes. See Wade, Murdoch, Giggs, etc

For the torture evidence, I would refer you to two major documentaries - John Pilger's "The War You Don't See", and Alex Gibney's "Taxi To The Dark Side". The gunship murders can be watched in detail through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Pilger - now there's a man with a political agenda. He has developed a rewarding line in self-hating the Western democracies in which his career has flourished. He may be capable of producing decent documentaries, but I dare say some of the loonies presenting Fox News in the States could do the same with a different political filter. Anyone who can criticise Aaronovitch with a straight face as a right-wing provocateur is a bit of a tit really.

When the old Soviet Union wanted to 'neutralise' dissidents and critics they said they were insane and sent them to psychiatric hospitals to be tormented by the doctors and psychiatrists there. I have the nasty feeling that the US are sufficiently annoyed by Wikileaks to have engineered the charges against him to pull him into the Swedish legal system preparatory to making a determined bid for his extradition to the US, where he faces goodness knows what in the way of prosecution.

Really? So now the social democratic model that is neutral Sweden is in fact a US lackey? A country with one of the most open systems of government has presumably had its police force, prosecution service and wider judiciary - not to mention its media - co-opted as part of a CIA conspiracy. Or alternatively perhaps someone with a big head and overweening vanity really did decide to get his hole where it wasn't on offer? A trial might tell us.

That is, of course, if they actually bring him to trial.

But then, the US would NEVER just lock up a man and for years and years without bringing him to trial, would they?

Which extraditee did you have in mind here? Is there anyone they have extradited and then locked up 'for years and years without bringing him to trial'?

THAT only happens in places like CUBA. :rolleyes:

As for Ecuador's 'needless' comment about colonialism - the US has never treated any Latin American republics as if they were US colonies, have they? Panama? Chile? Colombia? Bolivia? Nicaragua? Cuba itself?

Thought not. :rolleyes:

The measure of the man is in his behaviour. No secrets, no private conversations for governments. Maximum transparency and let the cards fall where they may for truth and justice. Unless it applies to me and there's a chance I might be held accountable for my actions with maximum transparency in a court of law, in which case head for the most willing government regardless of THEIR human rights record and save my own skin at any cost. Revolting.

VickMackie
16-08-2012, 04:43 PM
Doddie, they said British colony.

It was needless because it adds nothing to the discussion. Uk want him to Sweden, then prob to America.

Why not just say we won't be bullied?

Pointless statement other than to get media attention or a dig at the uk.

Betty Boop
16-08-2012, 05:22 PM
:agree: Wikileaks is a real threat to the ability of governments to control the flow of information from places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is why I'm so suspicious of the whole legal framework surrounding Assange.

The fact is that the UK and US media do not and cannot give their readers an accurate and honest picture of how the war in Afghanistan is being conducted. Reporters 'embedded' among the troops go where they're told to go, report what they're told to report, photograph what they're told to photograph, and go nowhere, report nothing, photograph nothing except where and what they're told to. Most of the others stay in the 'safe' areas and report what they get through the official agencies. Occasionally someone steps out of the party line and we discover that the war (sorry - conflict/insurgency) isn't going QUITE as well as the official line's been claiming.

The very fact that the British media have made a hugely greater fuss about Assange's alleged personal faults than they ever have about the murder of 20 people, including two journalists, by the crew of a US helicopter gunship on the 12 July 2007 says it all. The evidence for that shooting has been made public - by Wikileaks - as has evidence for the routine torture of civilian prisoners by the US and British troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the torture evidence, I would refer you to two major documentaries - John Pilger's "The War You Don't See", and Alex Gibney's "Taxi To The Dark Side". The gunship murders can be watched in detail through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

When the old Soviet Union wanted to 'neutralise' dissidents and critics they said they were insane and sent them to psychiatric hospitals to be tormented by the doctors and psychiatrists there. I have the nasty feeling that the US are sufficiently annoyed by Wikileaks to have engineered the charges against him to pull him into the Swedish legal system preparatory to making a determined bid for his extradition to the US, where he faces goodness knows what in the way of prosecution.

That is, of course, if they actually bring him to trial.

But then, the US would NEVER just lock up a man and for years and years without bringing him to trial, would they?

THAT only happens in places like CUBA. :rolleyes:

As for Ecuador's 'needless' comment about colonialism - the US has never treated any Latin American republics as if they were US colonies, have they? Panama? Chile? Colombia? Bolivia? Nicaragua? Cuba itself?

Thought not. :rolleyes:

See there is talk of the Embassy being stormed, all rules are oot the windae. Can you imagine the Murkans, if the Chinese had tried to get to Chen Guancheng ?

RyeSloan
16-08-2012, 05:24 PM
We debated this before when the story first broke, but Assange clearly has a case to answer in Sweden, not exactly notorious as a US puppet state from where unreasonable deportation to Washington would be likely. I find it extremely distasteful how holy cows of the Left like John Pilger are charging about screeching that Assange is innocent of rape. How do they know? And since when do British liberals and feminists side up to denounce alleged rape victims in Sweden? only in this case.


Agree totally. :agree: :agree:

steakbake
16-08-2012, 05:49 PM
We must respect embassies but this man is facing two counts of rape. His own lawyer said he participated on disrespectful and distasteful sex. Ecuador have abused the role of an embassy but hopefully the UK does not breech diplomatic agreements

Indeed - it's up to the UK to find a diplomatic solution to this but it should be done so solely in light of the UK/Swedish/Ecuadorian relations and without any consideration given to US motivations presumed or otherwise. Where I think Assange (whatever you think of him) has a substantiated fear is that the UK has a very one-sided arrangement with the US in relation to extradition.

As I understand it, the Ecuadorian authorities have advised the Swedish authorities that they are willing to enable investigating officers to interview him in London. The Swedish authorities have turned this request down despite it being the case that at this stage in the investigations at least, Assange is not yet at a stage of facing a trial. He would only be going to answer to the charges and it would be up to the public prosecutor in Sweden to then decide whether he has a case to answer or not and the trial would presumably go from there - or not. I may have misunderstood that - but that is what I think is the case.

Whatever the ins and outs of it are, the whole situation is a massive diplomatic knot. If Assange feels he has no case to answer, then I don't see how he has anything to fear from going to Sweden. Surely once in Sweden, if he did have a case to answer that gets dealt with first. Then the request may come from the USA for extradition to there for the separate charges of espionage.

It seems that both Assange and some folks stateside have already jumped the presumption on that. I am not entirely sure either, how you can consider that he's more likely to be extradited from Sweden to the USA than he is from here, given that our extradition treaty with the US is as one sided as it is.

Completely separate to his lifestyle choices and what he may or may not have done, I think wikileaks did the world a massive service. The US cannot have it both ways - they cannot play down the significance of the information and say it is trivial and largely already public knowledge on the one hand yet have lawmakers saying it is an act of espionage and worthy of the death penalty as a federal offence on the other.

lucky
16-08-2012, 05:51 PM
I appreciate he has not been found guilty but by refusing to face justice his innocence or guilt can't be proved. If the alleged victims were your daughters would you still be supporting his attempt at dodging extradition to Sweden? Sweden is hardly known for human rights abuses. The woman victims have rights too.

--------
16-08-2012, 06:19 PM
I'm with Beefster on this one.

The measure of the man is in his behaviour. No secrets, no private conversations for governments. Maximum transparency and let the cards fall where they may for truth and justice. Unless it applies to me and there's a chance I might be held accountable for my actions with maximum transparency in a court of law, in which case head for the most willing government regardless of THEIR human rights record and save my own skin at any cost. Revolting.




Sorry - but Wikileaks certainly WAS a threat to the control of the media by the US in Iraq - otherwise they wouldn't have been in such a wax about that gunship film being leaked. That among a lot more they didn't want made public. If this weren't so Newt and the GOP wouldn't be raving the way they are accusing him of being a traitor. Point of information - can an Australian be a traitor to the USA?

The Internet as a whole is seen as a threat by People's Republic of China and regimes like them, but while the western governments can generally cope with the net as a whole, the US in particular certainly couldn't deal with Wikileaks and that's why their threat to seek his extradition is complicating the whole issue.

Now I did NOT suggest that Sweden was a 'US lackey'. The pressure would be on the court, and in particular on the judge, to grant the US petition. And I'm sorry, but I really don't trust the US government to be entirely frank and honest in its dealings with foreign courts. Remember the way they went ballistic over Al-Megrahi? They're infinitely more concerned to get their hands on Assange.

I have no particular liking for Assange. However, if you're happy that our soldiers are fighting alongside the soldiers of a country which has thrown out the Geneva Conventions on torture and the emotional, psychological and sexual abuse of prisoners civilian and military, I'm not. That's something Wikileaks at least has brought tot he world's attention in an unmistakeable way.

The "War Against Terror" has resulted in the erosion of civil and legal rights in the West, in the US and in the UK, in the invasion of Iraq (which BTW is STILL in a state of violence and political anarchy) and in an ongoing war in Afghanistan where the Coalition is fighting, and men and women dying, to support a regime headed by an Afghan warlord as corrupt and cruel as any of the guys whom the Western media class as "insurgents". It's no longer even a matter for discussion in Parliament; nor in the popular media. That's why we need people like Pilger; however, he's not the only dissenter - maybe just the best-known.

Eyrie
16-08-2012, 06:40 PM
The British threat to remove the diplomatic status of the Ecuadorean embassy was stupid, and effectively forced the Ecuadorean government's hand.

But Assange is not to my mind entitled to any sort of asylum. He has not been accused of political crimes but of sexual offences. He claims that being extradited by Sweden will result in him being extradited to the US to face the death penalty, yet the US has made no attempt to extradite him from the UK (which is supine in the face of such requests) and the European Court of Human Rights would prevent him being sent by either the UK or Sweden if there is a risk he could be executed.

This isn't about Wikileaks, this is about criminal offences allegedly committed in a country which is normally held up as a bastion of human rights.

Beefster
17-08-2012, 07:08 AM
We debated this before when the story first broke, but Assange clearly has a case to answer in Sweden, not exactly notorious as a US puppet state from where unreasonable deportation to Washington would be likely. I find it extremely distasteful how holy cows of the Left like John Pilger are charging about screeching that Assange is innocent of rape. How do they know? And since when do British liberals and feminists side up to denounce alleged rape victims in Sweden? only in this case.

Agree with everything you say.

It wouldn't be so bad if Assange was truly a defender of the right to 'no secrets' but his (and the rest of his public supporters') hypocrisy knows no bounds. Anyone who reads Private Eye (that well-known mouthpiece of the establishment) knows all about how quickly Assange can turn on anyone (including threats of legal action) who deviates from the Assange line.

Assange has a case to answer on the rape allegations, whether guilty or not. His attempts to avoid answering those, especially considering he couldn't be extradited to the US if the death penalty was an option, don't do him any favours.

As an aside, maybe a supporter can answer me this, if the US really, really wanted him, why haven't they applied to the UK for extradition?

That's before we get started on the utter, unforgivable hypocrisy of choosing Ecuador as a defender of free speech and openness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-few-friends-left-sweden?newsfeed=true

hibsbollah
17-08-2012, 08:41 AM
...and on the same theme

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-there-should-be-no-immunity-for-assange-from-these-allegations-8053869.html

I'm going to see Tony Benn speak at the festival next week, and im really hoping when this subject cones up he doesnt do a Pilger.

Betty Boop
17-08-2012, 08:41 AM
Agree with everything you say.

It wouldn't be so bad if Assange was truly a defender of the right to 'no secrets' but his (and the rest of his public supporters') hypocrisy knows no bounds. Anyone who reads Private Eye (that well-known mouthpiece of the establishment) knows all about how quickly Assange can turn on anyone (including threats of legal action) who deviates from the Assange line.

Assange has a case to answer on the rape allegations, whether guilty or not. His attempts to avoid answering those, especially considering he couldn't be extradited to the US if the death penalty was an option, don't do him any favours.

As an aside, maybe a supporter can answer me this, if the US really, really wanted him, why haven't they applied to the UK for extradition?

That's before we get started on the utter, unforgivable hypocrisy of choosing Ecuador as a defender of free speech and openness.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-few-friends-left-sweden?newsfeed=true

Assnage has already been questioned, and the case was dropped , only to be picked up again by a different prosecutor. As for Sweden they were investigated, and found guilty by the UN Human Rights commitee of unlawfully handing over asylum seekers to CIA operatives, who then rendered them to Egypt for torture. Julian Assange has every right to be fearful of being extradited to the US, as the Sratfor emails have shown.

http://wikileaks.org/Stratfor-Emails-US-Has-Issued.html

Betty Boop
17-08-2012, 08:56 AM
...and on the same theme

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-there-should-be-no-immunity-for-assange-from-these-allegations-8053869.html

I'm going to see Tony Benn speak at the festival next week, and im really hoping when this subject cones up he doesnt do a Pilger.

In that case I think you will be disappointed then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyBcqPwuQE8

Beefster
17-08-2012, 11:17 AM
Assnage has already been questioned, and the case was dropped , only to be picked up again by a different prosecutor. As for Sweden they were investigated, and found guilty by the UN Human Rights commitee of unlawfully handing over asylum seekers to CIA operatives, who then rendered them to Egypt for torture. Julian Assange has every right to be fearful of being extradited to the US, as the Sratfor emails have shown.

http://wikileaks.org/Stratfor-Emails-US-Has-Issued.html

So why hasn't the US asked the UK for him, bearing in mind how crap our extradition agreement with the US is for folk on our side?

You make it sound very conspiracy theory-like. AFAIK, he was questioned, some authority said that there was no case to answer, another said he was still suspected of molestation, the two women involved appealed any decision to drop the investigation and the investigation was reopened. Assange then fled Sweden when he found out he was to be arrested (as all us innocents are all prone to doing).

As for Sweden, the UK are supposed to have handed folk over the CIA too. Why did he want to stay here?

Why did he choose to claim asylum from a country with a fairly bad human rights and free speech record? Maybe not so righteous, after all?

You think the two women claiming to be raped are part of the conspiracy?

Sergio sledge
17-08-2012, 11:17 AM
Sorry - but Wikileaks certainly WAS a threat to the control of the media by the US in Iraq - otherwise they wouldn't have been in such a wax about that gunship film being leaked. That among a lot more they didn't want made public. If this weren't so Newt and the GOP wouldn't be raving the way they are accusing him of being a traitor. Point of information - can an Australian be a traitor to the USA?

Are they not talking about the American guy who passed the information to Wikileaks? They want him tried for treason. IIRC, they are calling for Assange to be tried for terrorism offences, which could certainly result in the death penalty. I struggle to see how wikileaks can be classed as terrorism.

How can an Australian seek assylum from prosecution in Sweden? Does it not have to be your home country that you are seeking assylum from?

Th US haven't even said what he would be tried for or issued an extradition request, so how can he justifiably say there is a threat to him of political persecution?

I find it pretty distasteful and alarming the readiness of certain high profile speakers, commentators and journalists to come out a perform a pretty nasty indirect assassination of the two accusers characters without any evidence to back it up other than conspiracy theories. I take it that it is OK to suggest that these women are guilty of lying and false accusations without any evidence but as soon as Assange is accused of something he is "innocent until proven guilty?" Are these women also not "innocent until proven guilty" of making false accusations?

Now, I have no idea if he is guilty or not, or whether these women are making false accusations or not, but surely this is something which has to be allowed to proceed through the proper judicial channels without prejudice against either party.

hibsbollah
17-08-2012, 11:34 AM
In that case I think you will be disappointed then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyBcqPwuQE8

Oh dear. One of my heroes making a plum of himself.

'the charge of rape simply does not stand up to scrutiny'. Well surely that can only be tested, Tony, by a court of law in a well respected social democratic state legislature like Sweden. Absolutely reprehensible prejudicial statement... and Benn is supposedly a defender of sexual equality?

Anyway, ive disagreed with him on plenty of things before i suppose.

Beefster
17-08-2012, 02:17 PM
'the charge of rape simply does not stand up to scrutiny'. Well surely that can only be tested, Tony, by a court of law in a well respected social democratic state legislature like Sweden.

I think that only applies when the accused isn't someone sticking it to America or doesn't share their views. If it was Nick Griffin or Tommy Robinson behaving this way, they'd all be outraged (and rightly so).

--------
18-08-2012, 01:40 PM
Are they not talking about the American guy who passed the information to Wikileaks? They want him tried for treason. IIRC, they are calling for Assange to be tried for terrorism offences, which could certainly result in the death penalty. I struggle to see how wikileaks can be classed as terrorism.

How can an Australian seek assylum from prosecution in Sweden? Does it not have to be your home country that you are seeking assylum from?

Th US haven't even said what he would be tried for or issued an extradition request, so how can he justifiably say there is a threat to him of political persecution?

I find it pretty distasteful and alarming the readiness of certain high profile speakers, commentators and journalists to come out a perform a pretty nasty indirect assassination of the two accusers characters without any evidence to back it up other than conspiracy theories. I take it that it is OK to suggest that these women are guilty of lying and false accusations without any evidence but as soon as Assange is accused of something he is "innocent until proven guilty?" Are these women also not "innocent until proven guilty" of making false accusations?

Now, I have no idea if he is guilty or not, or whether these women are making false accusations or not, but surely this is something which has to be allowed to proceed through the proper judicial channels without prejudice against either party.


There are guys in Guantanamo long-term who've done a lot less than Assange to rock the US boat.

Lots of people in Coalition custody in Iraq and Afghanistan have been brutally tortured for doing a lot less than he's done.

"Terrorism" has become a handy card to play - a bit like "Communist" in the 1950's and 60's.

I have no idea myself whether Assange is guilty or innocent of the charges laid against him by the two women. But as "distasteful and alarming" as you find the defence of Assange by "high profile speakers, commentators and journalists", I find it equally so that other "high profile speakers, commentators and journalists" (and certain posters on this forum) are so determined to condemn Assange as clearly guilty of crimes for which he hasn't yet faced trial while upholding Sweden as an example of high-minded, incorruptible democracy.

And that they do so while ignoring both the US record of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan (a record, sadly, shared by other members of the Coalition including ourselves).

And of course, the regime we inserted into Iraq and the one we're supporting in Afghanistan are shining examples of democracy and the rule of law in action ....

Sweden has been complicit in a number of cases of extraordinary rendition by the CIA. Just so's we're clear, "extraordinary rendition" translates as kidnapping someone, illegally moving them from the country where they were seized to another country against their will, and there imprisoning them without trial, interrogating them with torture over long periods of time, and in some cases murdering them.

I think that if I were in Assange's position, guilty or innocent, I would be worried about going back to Sweden and surrendering to the Swedish police, too.

Eyrie
18-08-2012, 07:14 PM
I have no idea myself whether Assange is guilty or innocent of the charges laid against him by the two women. But as "distasteful and alarming" as you find the defence of Assange by "high profile speakers, commentators and journalists", I find it equally so that other "high profile speakers, commentators and journalists" (and certain posters on this forum) are so determined to condemn Assange as clearly guilty of crimes for which he hasn't yet faced trial while upholding Sweden as an example of high-minded, incorruptible democracy.
I think the vast majority of Assange's critics would prefer that he faces the charges in Sweden and is cleared or convicted on the evidence presented in court. However many of Assange's supporters are equally guilty of making attacks on the honesty of the two alleged victims and, given the seriousness of the allegations, surely they rather than Assange should receive the benefit of the doubt until the court case is decided?


And that they do so while ignoring both the US record of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan (a record, sadly, shared by other members of the Coalition including ourselves).

And of course, the regime we inserted into Iraq and the one we're supporting in Afghanistan are shining examples of democracy and the rule of law in action ....
I don't see how that is relevant to allegations of sexual assault by Assange. It is perfectly possible and even logical to criticise the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan whilst expecting the judicial process to be respected. Both are after all a matter of human rights.


Sweden has been complicit in a number of cases of extraordinary rendition by the CIA. Just so's we're clear, "extraordinary rendition" translates as kidnapping someone, illegally moving them from the country where they were seized to another country against their will, and there imprisoning them without trial, interrogating them with torture over long periods of time, and in some cases murdering them.

I think that if I were in Assange's position, guilty or innocent, I would be worried about going back to Sweden and surrendering to the Swedish police, too.
I haven't heard such allegations regarding Sweden, but will take your word on them. However a high profile case like Assange is not going to end that way because there will be too much attention focussed on it.

And if Assange is that worried about being extradited to the US, why did he remain in the UK for so long and why didn't the US attempt to extradite him from here? I've yet to read any explanation of this.

Sergio sledge
18-08-2012, 08:30 PM
There are guys in Guantanamo long-term who've done a lot less than Assange to rock the US boat.

Lots of people in Coalition custody in Iraq and Afghanistan have been brutally tortured for doing a lot less than he's done.

"Terrorism" has become a handy card to play - a bit like "Communist" in the 1950's and 60's.

I have no idea myself whether Assange is guilty or innocent of the charges laid against him by the two women. But as "distasteful and alarming" as you find the defence of Assange by "high profile speakers, commentators and journalists", I find it equally so that other "high profile speakers, commentators and journalists" (and certain posters on this forum) are so determined to condemn Assange as clearly guilty of crimes for which he hasn't yet faced trial while upholding Sweden as an example of high-minded, incorruptible democracy.

And that they do so while ignoring both the US record of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan (a record, sadly, shared by other members of the Coalition including ourselves).

And of course, the regime we inserted into Iraq and the one we're supporting in Afghanistan are shining examples of democracy and the rule of law in action ....

Sweden has been complicit in a number of cases of extraordinary rendition by the CIA. Just so's we're clear, "extraordinary rendition" translates as kidnapping someone, illegally moving them from the country where they were seized to another country against their will, and there imprisoning them without trial, interrogating them with torture over long periods of time, and in some cases murdering them.

I think that if I were in Assange's position, guilty or innocent, I would be worried about going back to Sweden and surrendering to the Swedish police, too.

I didn't read the other thread, but I can't see anyone condemning him as guilty in this thread. Perhaps you can point me to their posts. I've also not seen any high profile people condemning him as guilty, certainly if it exists it is much less prevalent than his supporters clearly smearing his accusers characters and fuelling the conspiracy theories. If you feel comfortable with that fair enough, but I certainly don't feel that it is right. If this was a random girl and a random man and the man's friends started a 'she's lying and anyway she was gagging for it' defence in the press I'm pretty sure you would be on the other side. Just because the guy is high profile in his criticism of the USA, doesn't mean he shouldn't face up to the allegations and let the judicial process run.

I don't see what possible relevance the US's war crimes record or the 'democratic' regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan have to this case other than giving you another opportunity for you to vent.

I've not claimed anything about Sweden's democracy, but happy to be educated on why they aren't democratic or seem to be US lackeys as you are insinuating. I would like to see evidence though, not more conspiracy theories.

I know what extraordinary rendition is, but thanks for the explanation. Very condescending. If you seriously think that this is likely in this case then with all the publicity surrounding it then you are letting your hatred of America get in the way of common sense IMHO.

I'd just like to see someone who has been accused of something face the allegations and, if he is innocent, prove his innocence and, if he is guilty, take the punishment for the crime. It seems sad that not everyone seems to feel this way.

Beefster
18-08-2012, 08:55 PM
Sweden has been complicit in a number of cases of extraordinary rendition by the CIA. Just so's we're clear, "extraordinary rendition" translates as kidnapping someone, illegally moving them from the country where they were seized to another country against their will, and there imprisoning them without trial, interrogating them with torture over long periods of time, and in some cases murdering them.

I think that if I were in Assange's position, guilty or innocent, I would be worried about going back to Sweden and surrendering to the Swedish police, too.

The UK has been complicit in extraordinary rendition and our extradition treaty with the US is a joke. Assange didn't seem to mind staying here despite, arguably, being at greater risk.

So if he's in no greater danger of being shuffled to the US from Sweden than he is from the UK, why else would he be reluctant to go to Sweden?

One Day Soon
19-08-2012, 01:00 PM
The UK has been complicit in extraordinary rendition and our extradition treaty with the US is a joke. Assange didn't seem to mind staying here despite, arguably, being at greater risk.

So if he's in no greater danger of being shuffled to the US from Sweden than he is from the UK, why else would he be reluctant to go to Sweden?


Well call me suspicious but perhaps its because he has something to hide?

From media darling high moral exposer of the evil capitalist West to the possibility of becoming a convicted sex offender who got his hole where it wasn't on offer - or in a manner not on offer - wouldn't leave him looking too pure any more would it?

--------
19-08-2012, 01:23 PM
I didn't read the other thread, but I can't see anyone condemning him as guilty in this thread. Perhaps you can point me to their posts. I've also not seen any high profile people condemning him as guilty, certainly if it exists it is much less prevalent than his supporters clearly smearing his accusers characters and fuelling the conspiracy theories. If you feel comfortable with that fair enough, but I certainly don't feel that it is right. If this was a random girl and a random man and the man's friends started a 'she's lying and anyway she was gagging for it' defence in the press I'm pretty sure you would be on the other side. Just because the guy is high profile in his criticism of the USA, doesn't mean he shouldn't face up to the allegations and let the judicial process run.

I don't see what possible relevance the US's war crimes record or the 'democratic' regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan have to this case other than giving you another opportunity for you to vent.

I've not claimed anything about Sweden's democracy, but happy to be educated on why they aren't democratic or seem to be US lackeys as you are insinuating. I would like to see evidence though, not more conspiracy theories.

I know what extraordinary rendition is, but thanks for the explanation. Very condescending. If you seriously think that this is likely in this case then with all the publicity surrounding it then you are letting your hatred of America get in the way of common sense IMHO.

I'd just like to see someone who has been accused of something face the allegations and, if he is innocent, prove his innocence and, if he is guilty, take the punishment for the crime. It seems sad that not everyone seems to feel this way.


Can the US demand his extradition from the UK while the case in Sweden is still unresolved? I'd have thought that Sweden would have priority there.

No, Assange isn't in danger of being kidnapped by the CIA; he's far too high-profile a case now.

Sorry - the bit about extraordinary rendition wasn't aimed at you - I should have made that plain, and I apologise for the tone I adopted there. It just seems a little odd that while I'm accused of discounting the rights of the two women to be heard (I'm not), so many others seem to be prepared to discount the crap that W/leaks uncovered by publishing documents passed on to them by whistleblowers in places like the Pentagon.

Government control of the news media - and government control of what information ever reaches the news media - is a cooruption of democracy and of a free society. W/leaks undermined the power of governments to control such information. I find it very hard to credit that it was a coincidence that the Assange prosecution wasn't welcome news to the governments of the US, the UK, Canada, China and others. Perhaps also the initial decision to drop the charges would have stood had those governments NOT been so pleased that Assange's alleged offences not given them such a good opportunity to rubbish him and by implication W/leaks?

Of course the case pending in the Swedish courts has to be tried some time. And the sooner the better - justice delayed is justice denied. But Assange is also entitled to the assurance of justice, whatever sort of person he is. I'm not convinced that the Swedes, or the UK, or the other governments with an interest in these cases are either committed to or even interested in providing that assurance.

And no, I don't hate 'America' or the US - in some ways the US has actually done a much better job in the areas of Iraq under their control that the UK achieved in Basra and the south. But the fact that in both Iraq and Afghanistan the US and UK have stepped well away from the Hague and Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare - in particular the Conventions on the treatment of prisoners, the use of torture in interrogating prisoners, the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian targets, the deliberate targeting of civilian targets, the use of DU (depleted uranium) rounds by tanks and artillery ... That causes me concern, as does also the commitment of our servicemen and servicewomen to wars only doubtfully legal, very doubtfully winnable, for aims which have never really been made public. At least, not in the mass media - you have to go looking for the news around the darker corners of the Internet - the easily accessible news media - BBC, Fox, CNN etc - don't question the Coalition governments' line.

One Day Soon
19-08-2012, 05:25 PM
Assange today: "The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful."

But he doesn't want to go before the Swedish court to answer for his alleged crimes against two of Wikileaks' own former female volunteers.

Do they have the word hypocrite in Australia?

He is clearly on the ego-ride of a lifetime. It is going to end badly.

marinello59
19-08-2012, 05:33 PM
Assange today: "The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful."

But he doesn't want to go before the Swedish court to answer for his alleged crimes against two of Wikileaks' own former female volunteers. Do they have the word hypocrite in Australia?

He is clearly on the ego-ride of a lifetime. It is going to end badly.

Was that even mentioned? I realy have tried to see both sidesof this but he really doesn't make it easy.
Did he mention how those who oppose the Government are treated in Ecuador at all?

Hibs Class
19-08-2012, 07:25 PM
Was that even mentioned? I realy have tried to see both sidesof this but he really doesn't make it easy.
Did he mention how those who oppose the Government are treated in Ecuador at all?


As far as I saw he didn't mention it at all. His talk was all about wikileaks, Obama etc. It did strike me that if this was a stunt by any one else accused of rape that it would be unequivocally condemned, yet there are people (supporters even) who cheer and encourage him, presumably because his agenda and their's are somehow aligned.

Nuitdelune
19-08-2012, 07:38 PM
I accept this is a massive over simplification of the issues at stake, but as one who respected him to begin with, I think, after all, he is a complete tube

King Efe
19-08-2012, 10:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3MnQNub6h8&feature=g-u-u

So what did these protestors do wrong? Nothing. Guy holding the camera is a bit of a twonk but the footage speaks for itself.

hibsbollah
20-08-2012, 05:51 AM
I accept this is a massive over simplification of the issues at stake, but as one who respected him to begin with, I think, after all, he is a complete tube

This sums up yesterday for me.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/the-sketch-he-tried-to-appear-churchillian-but-ended-up-more-john-inmanian-8061661.html

Betty Boop
20-08-2012, 10:01 AM
New documentary from Four Corners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0oZ8j3I2ac

--------
20-08-2012, 11:03 AM
New documentary from Four Corners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0oZ8j3I2ac


Thanks, BB.

A rather different story from the one served up by the UK and US media.

That looks to be a serious piece of investigative journalism. Maybe everyone else posting on this thread will take the 45-50 minutes to watch it?

Quite a contrast to the cheap shot about him looking like John Inman in The Independent's article.

Now if The Independent - which presents itself as one of the more serious and responsible and impartial organs of the British Press can print something like - "Far from giving him a Churchillian look, his blue shirt, crimson tie and cropped hair created – as one wag pointed out on Twitter – a curious resemblance to John Inman, from the 1970s' sitcom Are you Being Served? But what was much more serious – the elephant in the room, so to speak – was Assange's wilful failure to say anything about the actual reason that the Swedish police want to question him" - without raising the question of exactly why the Swedish police really want him extradited from the UK, that worries me.

And THAT question - why are the Swedes so determined to prosecute an Australian citizen in such questionable circumstances - is exactly what the "Four Corners" documentary addresses in detail.

Passing thought - Ecuador may very well have a poor record in the areas of human rights and freedom of speech, but what about the record of the United States of America? Or Sweden itself, or the UK? Willing conspirators in the process of extraordinary rendition. As far as I know, the only European country to mount and effective protest against the practice is Italy in the aftermath of the Abu Omar kidnapping in Milan.

marinello59
20-08-2012, 11:34 AM
c
Thanks, BB.

A rather different story from the one served up by the UK and US media.

But oif course, Assange looks like John Inman, so he must be lying. The Independent says so. :rolleyes:

Except that's not what they were saying. It wasn't the smartest comment to come out with in what should be a serious commentary piece though. Still, if that makes you uncomfortable or merely strikes you as unfair how do you feel about the way the women's allegations in this case are discredited in that documentary? Check out the transcript of any sexual assault case and it looks like the defence case here follows a very familiar pattern doesn't it? I don't know whether he is innocent or not but many of his supporters seem to have made up their minds already.

hibsbollah
20-08-2012, 11:53 AM
Any Assange supporter getting all offended about a fairly innoccuous John Inman comparison shoukd bear in mind that Miss A and Miss W, the forgotten centre of the case have been described as 'golddiggers' and 'honeytrappers' by his legal team, terms that would probably have them reorimanded under English (or Scots?) law.

But the Assange tactic is never, ever mention the real reason hes holed up in the ecuadorian embassy, that hes wanted for rape and has skipped bail.

--------
20-08-2012, 11:56 AM
c

Except that's not what they were saying. It wasn't the smartest comment to come out with in what should be a serious commentary piece though. Still, if that makes you uncomfortable or merely strikes you as unfair how do you feel about the way the women's allegations in this case are discredited in that documentary? Check out the transcript of any sexual assault case and it looks like the defence case here follows a very familiar pattern doesn't it? I don't know whether he is innocent or not but many of his supporters seem to have made up their minds already.


The Four Corners piece examines the allegations laid by the women in the light of facts agreed by both defence and prosecution. It certainly doesn't rubbish them out of hand; everything it says is backed by at least one source

It also examines the process by which an initial inquiry into whether Assange could be made to undergo tests for STDs in the light of his refusal to use a condom escalated into charges which have repeatedly been characterised as "multiple rape" - when the women concerned were seen in Assange's company, happy and relaxed, for days after the alleged incidents? Where one of the women was offered a very easy 'out' from Assange's company - and refused it?

And how he was "arrested in his absence" - interesting concept - and only learned he had been arrested because the Swedish police the same day leaked the story to the Swedish press who reported it as "Julian Assange hunted in Sweden for rape" - same typeface as The Sun's "GOTCHA" headline in 1982?

Lots of other stuff too, mind.

I can't speak for the majority of his supporters. What I do say is that there seems to be a huge degree of doubt surrounding the circumstances and timing of the levelling of those rape charges in the first place, and that neither the Swedish Government, nor the UK Government, nor the US Government has the human rights track record over the past couple of decades to give me confidence that Assange will receive fair treatment either from the Swedish courts or the US courts, if, as I suspect, the US successfully request his extradition in the wake of the Swedish court case.

The treatment received by Bradley Manning, who leaked the camera-gun videotape of the Baghdad helicopter gunship shootings - unarguably a war-crime - hardly encourages confidence in the even-handedness of US justice in investigating Assange. The US Constitution no longer includes an Eighth Amendment.

RyeSloan
20-08-2012, 12:23 PM
Thanks, BB.

A rather different story from the one served up by the UK and US media.

That looks to be a serious piece of investigative journalism. Maybe everyone else posting on this thread will take the 45-50 minutes to watch it?

Quite a contrast to the cheap shot about him looking like John Inman in The Independent's article.

Now if The Independent - which presents itself as one of the more serious and responsible and impartial organs of the British Press can print something like - "Far from giving him a Churchillian look, his blue shirt, crimson tie and cropped hair created – as one wag pointed out on Twitter – a curious resemblance to John Inman, from the 1970s' sitcom Are you Being Served? But what was much more serious – the elephant in the room, so to speak – was Assange's wilful failure to say anything about the actual reason that the Swedish police want to question him" - without raising the question of exactly why the Swedish police really want him extradited from the UK, that worries me.

And THAT question - why are the Swedes so determined to prosecute an Australian citizen in such questionable circumstances - is exactly what the "Four Corners" documentary addresses in detail.

Passing thought - Ecuador may very well have a poor record in the areas of human rights and freedom of speech, but what about the record of the United States of America? Or Sweden itself, or the UK? Willing conspirators in the process of extraordinary rendition. As far as I know, the only European country to mount and effective protest against the practice is Italy in the aftermath of the Abu Omar kidnapping in Milan.


I don't think anyone is saying they agree with extraordinary rendition but do you really think that puts the UK on par with the UK in terms of human rights? Does Ecuador have anything like the UK's alignement to the European Convention on Human Rights or access to a court that is independent of the countries own judiciary? Fact is Assange even now has recourse to the European Court of Human Rights however he is unlikely to go there because the european arrest warrant that has been issued against him does not infringe his human rights in any way.

Reading this link: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador shows that the coutrries are poles apart in terms of it's approach to human rights and while no country can ever claim to be squeeky clean I am confused as to how why you seem to be able to suggest that due to the UK's or Swedens indiscretion in one area that it then equates them to Ecuador's poor record across the board.


Is it not the case that Assange has had full recourse to the British judicial system including a hearing at the Supreme Court and after all of that the request from Sweden has been judged to be with merit. The fact he's Austrialian has nothing to do with it, the Swedish authorities state he has a case to answer, a case that inludes some very serious accusations..he should therefore be made to answer those accusations. Running off to an Ecuadorian embassy to avoid those has nothing to do with human rights abuses in the UK, Sweden, US or even Ecuador and all about Assange wanting to avoid the rule of law in the country he currently lives in and a country he has previously visited.

--------
20-08-2012, 01:11 PM
I don't think anyone is saying they agree with extraordinary rendition but do you really think that puts the UK on par with the UK in terms of human rights? Does Ecuador have anything like the UK's alignement to the European Convention on Human Rights or access to a court that is independent of the countries own judiciary? Fact is Assange even now has recourse to the European Court of Human Rights however he is unlikely to go there because the european arrest warrant that has been issued against him does not infringe his human rights in any way.

Reading this link: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador shows that the coutrries are poles apart in terms of it's approach to human rights and while no country can ever claim to be squeeky clean I am confused as to how why you seem to be able to suggest that due to the UK's or Swedens indiscretion in one area that it then equates them to Ecuador's poor record across the board.

Is it not the case that Assange has had full recourse to the British judicial system including a hearing at the Supreme Court and after all of that the request from Sweden has been judged to be with merit. The fact he's Austrialian has nothing to do with it, the Swedish authorities state he has a case to answer, a case that inludes some very serious accusations..he should therefore be made to answer those accusations. Running off to an Ecuadorian embassy to avoid those has nothing to do with human rights abuses in the UK, Sweden, US or even Ecuador and all about Assange wanting to avoid the rule of law in the country he currently lives in and a country he has previously visited.


I didn't 'equate them to Ecuador's poor record across the board". I simply pointed out that the UK has been guilty in the recent past of major breaches of the very Convention to which you draw our attention.

In the case of Sweden, the Swedish government has been proved to have been party to the kidnap and torture of two of its own citizens by the CIA - an official agency of the US Government. In the case of the UK there's strong evidence that rendition flights between the US and their accomplices in the Middle East were routed through Prestwick during Blair's time. IIRC questions were asked by the SNP in the Westminster Parliament which Blair responded to by claiming overriding security issues. Nothing was done about the flights, except, IIRC, to make sure that from then on they landed in and took off from Scotland during the hours of darkness.

People don't have to AGREE with extraordinary rendition - they just have to close their eyes to it. Just as the citizens of the Third Reich closed their eyes to the trains rolling through their towns and villages on the way to Auschwitz and points east.

But in light of the way in which the US and UK governments have sold the continuing involvement of their troops in Afghanistan (for example) as a matter of bringing security and democratic freedom to a country not enjoying those benefits of 'civilised' nationhood, our complicity in the use of torture by the US and our Afghan 'allies' seems to say the least a little hypocritical.

The general introduction to the Human Rights website you refer to sets this out in detail - http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/time-abandon-autocrats-and-embrace-rights. The report on the UK - http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-european-union#uk - puts the argument in perspective; the UK is by no means the worst offender (by a long way, I agree), but we still have a long way to go before we can claim to be in a position to point the finger at others.

Complicity in the kidnap and torture of two of your own citizens by a foreign power - even dear old Uncle Sam - isn't an 'indiscretion'. It's a crime. It's a crime even if the people kidnapped aren't your citizens, but citizens of another country. In Europe, only the Italian courts have explicitly stated and upheld this principle.

You say that the accusations levelled against Assange in Sweden are 'very serious'. I agree - but I would also suggest that the way in which those accusations have been handled by the Swedish judiciary raises huge questions regarding the independence of that judiciary from interference and influence from their own government and other foreign governments whose interests would be greatly served by the complete discrediting of Wikileaks and the information Wikileaks has made public over the years of its existence. Seems to me thatthat's exactly what has happened.

Seems to me that this American commentator speaks a lot of sense ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeTtBAOeDl4&feature=fvst

But that was in 2010 - the witch-hunt had hardly started.

marinello59
20-08-2012, 02:53 PM
The Four Corners piece examines the allegations laid by the women in the light of facts agreed by both defence and prosecution. It certainly doesn't rubbish them out of hand; everything it says is backed by at least one source

It also examines the process by which an initial inquiry into whether Assange could be made to undergo tests for STDs in the light of his refusal to use a condom escalated into charges which have repeatedly been characterised as "multiple rape" - when the women concerned were seen in Assange's company, happy and relaxed, for days after the alleged incidents? Where one of the women was offered a very easy 'out' from Assange's company - and refused it?

And how he was "arrested in his absence" - interesting concept - and only learned he had been arrested because the Swedish police the same day leaked the story to the Swedish press who reported it as "Julian Assange hunted in Sweden for rape" - same typeface as The Sun's "GOTCHA" headline in 1982?

Lots of other stuff too, mind.

I can't speak for the majority of his supporters. What I do say is that there seems to be a huge degree of doubt surrounding the circumstances and timing of the levelling of those rape charges in the first place, and that neither the Swedish Government, nor the UK Government, nor the US Government has the human rights track record over the past couple of decades to give me confidence that Assange will receive fair treatment either from the Swedish courts or the US courts, if, as I suspect, the US successfully request his extradition in the wake of the Swedish court case.

The treatment received by Bradley Manning, who leaked the camera-gun videotape of the Baghdad helicopter gunship shootings - unarguably a war-crime - hardly encourages confidence in the even-handedness of US justice in investigating Assange. The US Constitution no longer includes an Eighth Amendment.
I did watch the documentary but thanks for the recap anyway. :greengrin
So without the evidence being heard properly in a court of law you have either decided that Assange should not face justice because he is innocent anyway OR that the rights of these women are secondary to the right of Assange to skip bail and refuse to face his accusers because of something that might happen. Sound about right?

Beefster
20-08-2012, 03:58 PM
Thanks, BB.

A rather different story from the one served up by the UK and US media.

That looks to be a serious piece of investigative journalism.

...

Passing thought - Ecuador may very well have a poor record in the areas of human rights and freedom of speech, but what about the record of the United States of America? Or Sweden itself, or the UK? Willing conspirators in the process of extraordinary rendition. As far as I know, the only European country to mount and effective protest against the practice is Italy in the aftermath of the Abu Omar kidnapping in Milan.
[/COLOR]

C'mon Doddie. I'm surprised that you appear so utterly wedded to your position and are trying to defend (or bluster through) issues that I think are indefensible. You've just tried to avoid addressing Assange's hypocrisy by effectively saying "well, what about Sweden/UK/US". No offence but that's not much of an argument (and doesn't address why, if we're all so bad, Assange was quite happy to travel to Sweden on numerous occasions or tried to stay in the UK).

The Guardian, The Times, The Independent - all easily dismissed. A YouTube video from the Australian version of Panorama - "a serious piece of investigative journalism".

Folk are criticising the rank hypocrisy of Assange and the desperate attempts to avoid the allegations. To be fair to Assange, he's successfully clouded the rape allegations by making it about the nations involved (and some not even involved).

As an aside, the amount of questions/points on this thead ignored by the 'Assange supporters' says more about the strength of their argument than anything else.

Golden Bear
20-08-2012, 04:01 PM
The guy is an arrogant, publicity seeking self centred egotistical coward. If he is confident that the allegations against him are not true then he should place his faith in the Swedish judicial system.

What makes him think that he is beyond reproach and above the law?

--------
20-08-2012, 04:52 PM
I did watch the documentary but thanks for the recap anyway. :greengrin
So without the evidence being heard properly in a court of law you have either decided that Assange should not face justice because he is innocent anyway OR that the rights of these women are secondary to the right of Assange to skip bail and refuse to face his accusers because of something that might happen. Sound about right?


No, it doesn't. the accusations should be tested in a court of law - I've never denied that.

What I'm saying is that if we only look at the one aspect of the whole situation - the allegations made against Assange by these two women - then I think we're doing exactly what the governments whose cages Assange has rattled so badly with his publication of leaked documents on the Web want us to do - ignore the illegality of their conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, because the allegation is out there that Assange is a sex-beast.

It may be that Assange is using and exploiting the situation himself; the more fuss he makes before he surrenders to the Swedish authorities, the more difficult it will be for them to simply jump as high as the US government wants them to jump.

Wilen and Ardin are alleging that they're victims. This needs to be tested in court. The Australian documentary, it seems to me, raises enough questions about the various conflicting accounts to convince me that while someone is lying, it isn't necessarily Assange, nor even Wilen and Ardin. There are enough lawyers in the business to account for any number of 'terminological inexactitudes'.

If people like Julia Gillard had been as outspoken about the video of the Baghdad gunship shootings, I would take their condemnation of Assange a lot more seriously.

And since I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me, I think I'll just leave this now.

Beefster
20-08-2012, 05:05 PM
George Galloway wades into the debate by comparing rape to 'poor sexual etiquette' and reminding us that the allegations are 'unproven' (as all allegations are before a trial)....


8607

--------
20-08-2012, 05:13 PM
C'mon Doddie. I'm surprised that you appear so utterly wedded to your position and are trying to defend (or bluster through) issues that I think are indefensible. You've just tried to avoid addressing Assange's hypocrisy by effectively saying "well, what about Sweden/UK/US". No offence but that's not much of an argument (and doesn't address why, if we're all so bad, Assange was quite happy to travel to Sweden on numerous occasions or tried to stay in the UK).

The Guardian, The Times, The Independent - all easily dismissed. A YouTube video from the Australian version of Panorama - "a serious piece of investigative journalism".

Folk are criticising the rank hypocrisy of Assange and the desperate attempts to avoid the allegations. To be fair to Assange, he's successfully clouded the rape allegations by making it about the nations involved (and some not even involved).

As an aside, the amount of questions/points on this thead ignored by the 'Assange supporters' says more about the strength of their argument than anything else.


This has been such a drawn-out argument, I've forgotten if I said anything about the Times or the Guardian. I didn't dismiss the Independent outright - what I said was that from a paper with the Independent's reputation and standing, I wouldn't have expected a descent into "Ha, ha - he looks like John Inman so no one's going to take him seriously" sort of journalism. That's not 'easily dismissing' the paper, I don't think - it's expressing deep concern that a paper I respect and would normally take seriously is dealing with a major news-story in such an unsavoury manner.

I think there is a difference.

I don't deny that there are huge questions to be answered about Assange's character and conduct; what I AM saying is that while everyone's enjoying themselves concentrating on the question of whether or not he used a condom, and what exactly the salacious details of his one-night stands with Wilen and Ardin - that's not you, Beefster, but a fair proportion of the popular media - the bigger questions of hw exactly the Coalition forces conducted themselves in Iraq, and what exactly's going on in Afghanistan right now, and the fact that the world's greatest military superpower has effectively reneged on its acceptance of what not so long ago was generally accepted as the way for civilised nations to behave in wartime, and the question of human rights in war, questions that need to be debated and relate to the sort of society WE live in and the sort of people WE are - that stuff just disappears from view and nobody gives a whatsit.

And sorry, but that IS my last post - I don't think there's any more I can say I haven't already said.

hibsbollah
20-08-2012, 05:28 PM
George Galloway wades into the debate by comparing rape to 'poor sexual etiquette' and reminding us that the allegations are 'unproven' (as all allegations are before a trial)....


8607

It seems like its the acceptable thing these days to downplay rape...apparently its a fairly minor bit of slapn tickle gone wrong. and you cannae get pregnant anyway. or something.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19319240

If Assange ever does get to court, prepare yourselves for the 'she was begging for it' or 'her skirt was provocatively short' defence.

and no, im not prejudging whether our jules is innocent or guilty. im still wondering who doddie meant when saying people were doing so :dunno:

CropleyWasGod
20-08-2012, 06:39 PM
It seems like its the acceptable thing these days to downplay rape...apparently its a fairly minor bit of slapn tickle gone wrong. and you cannae get pregnant anyway. or something.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19319240

If Assange ever does get to court, prepare yourselves for the 'she was begging for it' or 'her skirt was provocatively short' defence.

and no, im not prejudging whether our jules is innocent or guilty. im still wondering who doddie meant when saying people were doing so :dunno:

Legitimate rape. :rolleyes:

hibsbollah
20-08-2012, 06:54 PM
Legitimate rape. :rolleyes:

I know. And hes favourite to win his senate seat as well.

Beefster
20-08-2012, 07:32 PM
It seems like its the acceptable thing these days to downplay rape...apparently its a fairly minor bit of slapn tickle gone wrong. and you cannae get pregnant anyway. or something.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19319240

If Assange ever does get to court, prepare yourselves for the 'she was begging for it' or 'her skirt was provocatively short' defence.

and no, im not prejudging whether our jules is innocent or guilty. im still wondering who doddie meant when saying people were doing so :dunno:

"But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

That Republican seems to be suggesting that rapists should only be punished if the woman's 'natural defences' don't stop her getting pregnant. I know he probably doesn't mean that but dearie me.

Betty Boop
20-08-2012, 08:29 PM
This has been such a drawn-out argument, I've forgotten if I said anything about the Times or the Guardian. I didn't dismiss the Independent outright - what I said was that from a paper with the Independent's reputation and standing, I wouldn't have expected a descent into "Ha, ha - he looks like John Inman so no one's going to take him seriously" sort of journalism. That's not 'easily dismissing' the paper, I don't think - it's expressing deep concern that a paper I respect and would normally take seriously is dealing with a major news-story in such an unsavoury manner.

I think there is a difference.

I don't deny that there are huge questions to be answered about Assange's character and conduct; what I AM saying is that while everyone's enjoying themselves concentrating on the question of whether or not he used a condom, and what exactly the salacious details of his one-night stands with Wilen and Ardin - that's not you, Beefster, but a fair proportion of the popular media - the bigger questions of hw exactly the Coalition forces conducted themselves in Iraq, and what exactly's going on in Afghanistan right now, and the fact that the world's greatest military superpower has effectively reneged on its acceptance of what not so long ago was generally accepted as the way for civilised nations to behave in wartime, and the question of human rights in war, questions that need to be debated and relate to the sort of society WE live in and the sort of people WE are - that stuff just disappears from view and nobody gives a whatsit.

And sorry, but that IS my last post - I don't think there's any more I can say I haven't already said.

Doddie you are wasting your time. Craig Murray former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan blew the whistle on UK/US led torture programmes then surprise, surprise, he was accused of extorting sexual favours for visas. He was fortunate enough to be able to clear his name. You might want to watch this talk given by Annie Machon, at the Investigative Journalism Conference 2012. :aok:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nQ85OlNDhU

hibsbollah
20-08-2012, 08:39 PM
Doddie you are wasting your time. Craig Murray former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan blew the whistle on UK/US led torture programmes then surprise, surprise, he was accused of extorting sexual favours for visas. He was fortunate enough to be able to clear his name. You might want to watch this talk given by Annie Machon, at the Investigative Journalism Conference 2012. :aok:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nQ85OlNDhU

The British Ambassador to Uzbekistan? therefore the same circumstances must apply to Assange and the two girls are therefore liars and in the pay of the Americans?


Cmon now.

Betty Boop
20-08-2012, 08:52 PM
The British Ambassador to Uzbekistan? therefore the same circumstances must apply to Assange and the two girls are therefore liars and in the pay of the Americans?


Cmon now.
I should have said the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Cmon now what ?

khib70
20-08-2012, 10:46 PM
The British Ambassador to Uzbekistan? therefore the same circumstances must apply to Assange and the two girls are therefore liars and in the pay of the Americans?


Cmon now.
Yes. cmon now, BB - you're better than this. The only connection between these two incidents is the word "sexual". The logic of your argument (and those of the Pilger/Benn/Loach set) is that the credibility of a rape accusation should be judged by how much one approves or disapproves of the political stance of the accused. That's a shoddy line of argument,and really crap sexual politics, surely?

If Assange is found guilty of sexual misconduct, it's not going to be put forward as a mass exoneration of US crimes in Iraq. It's possible that someone can be a serious, responsible investigative journalist and a rapist at the same time, I suppose. Right now, Assange definitely isn't the former, but until he faces his day in a court of law no one has the right to say whether he is or isn't the latter.

The only people predjudging Assange on this thread are you, Doddie and others, who have preacquitted him as well

joe_hfc
21-08-2012, 02:48 AM
Did he release sensitive cables relating to the US's involvement in the middle-east? Absolutely.
Is he a rapist? We don't know.
Is it a coincidence that the rape allegations came to light at the exact time when he had the US Government a tad embarrassé? I highly doubt it.

My feeling is that these allegations, whether true or not, were at least brought to light if not manufactured in order to get undermind the credibility of Assange and so his associated 'threat'. Either way, it is an indirect way of censorship of free media and speech. Maybe Assange is a filthy sex-pest, I guess we won't know until the trial, but for me the situation beams signs deception and conspiracy to moderate the flows of information to the lowly peasants; which if IMO is very very worrying.

easty
21-08-2012, 07:41 AM
George Galloway wades into the debate by comparing rape to 'poor sexual etiquette' and reminding us that the allegations are 'unproven' (as all allegations are before a trial)....


8607

"women A met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him. (She) claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen. I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion."

Even for George that's quite a comment.

Beefster
21-08-2012, 07:43 AM
"women A met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him. (She) claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen. I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion."

Even for George that's quite a comment.

I hadn't seen that sentence. Presumably, he doesn't think that a husband can rape his wife because you don't need to ask 'prior to each insertion'.

Sergio sledge
21-08-2012, 09:04 AM
I hadn't seen that sentence. Presumably, he doesn't think that a husband can rape his wife because you don't need to ask 'prior to each insertion'.

Here's the BBC article. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783)

Another quote:


Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them."It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?'
"It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning.

:rolleyes: Gorgeous George has really outdone himself this time.

Sir David Gray
21-08-2012, 01:20 PM
:rolleyes: Gorgeous George has really outdone himself this time.

:agree: Even by his standards, that is a belter.

Well done George, you've really excelled yourself there! :aok:

How that guy is an MP really beggars belief. In fact, scrap that, I know perfectly well how he's made it into the House of Commons but that's for an entirely different thread.

PeeJay
21-08-2012, 02:55 PM
Legitimate rape. :rolleyes:

Hmm, this nutcase is only using "legitimate rape" here in a qualifying sense, i.e. "rape" as proven by law surely, as opposed to alleged rape that has been dismissed in a court of law ... isn't he?

CropleyWasGod
21-08-2012, 02:59 PM
Hmm, this nutcase is only using "legitimate rape" here in a qualifying sense, i.e. "rape" as proven by law surely, as opposed to alleged rape that has been dismissed in a court of law ... isn't he?


... in which case it wouldn't be rape.

Yeah, nutcase indeed. No empathy for victims of rape, or indeed for the English language. :rolleyes:

hibsbollah
21-08-2012, 03:01 PM
Hmm, this nutcase is only using "legitimate rape" here in a qualifying sense, i.e. "rape" as proven by law surely, as opposed to alleged rape that has been dismissed in a court of law ... isn't he?


You'd hope so, but the context suggests otherwise. A strange man.

Eyrie
21-08-2012, 07:01 PM
Even his own party is distancing itself (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19334598) from Galloway.

"George Galloway's comments on what constitutes rape are deeply disappointing and wrong."


And a vey clear debunking of the legal myths peddled by Assange's supporters here (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition).

hibsbollah
21-08-2012, 07:23 PM
Even his own party is distancing itself (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19334598) from Galloway.



And a vey clear debunking of the legal myths peddled by Assange's supporters here (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition).

That newstatesman link was very good. Theres another article with the same legal points i was reading called the blog that peter wrote.

khib70
21-08-2012, 09:25 PM
That newstatesman link was very good. Theres another article with the same legal points i was reading called the blog that peter wrote.

:agree:Very good indeed. The heart of the matter is summed up in the last sentence

"It is important to remember that complainants of rape and sexual assault have rights too, even when the suspect is Julian Assange."

Amen

CropleyWasGod
21-08-2012, 09:36 PM
Here's the BBC article. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783)

Another quote:



:rolleyes: Gorgeous George has really outdone himself this time.

The irony being that, if he said that about a case which was sub judice in this country, he would probably be in contempt of Court.

Eyrie
21-08-2012, 09:38 PM
:agree:Very good indeed. The heart of the matter is summed up in the last sentence

"It is important to remember that complainants of rape and sexual assault have rights too, even when the suspect is Julian Assange."

Amen
Those rights include the right to oppose extradition and then the right to appeal unsuccessfully against the decision to extradite at every level available. Having exhausted every right of appeal, he now has the right to a fair trial. He does not have the right to frustrate the judicial process by breaking bail and seeking asylum for sexual offenses.

I'd be interested to know exactly how Assange has had his rights violated. Maybe he could compare notes with Alexander Barankov.

RyeSloan
22-08-2012, 08:46 AM
Funny how Assange's supporters are so certian that the claims are 'dubious' and fabricated only becuase of his connections to Wiki.

If they are so certain that the allegations have so little foundation then surely it should be a reasonably straight forward matter to destroy them in a court of law.

The whole circus is somewhat bizzare and while I have no doubt the forces of empire would do anything do anyone that stands in their way I really can't help but think that Assange's actions and words are not those of an innocent man...no facts to back that up of course, just a gut feeling!

jodjam
26-08-2012, 06:30 PM
Julian assange guest starred in tonight's 500th Simpsons episode

Betty Boop
26-08-2012, 07:15 PM
Yes. cmon now, BB - you're better than this. The only connection between these two incidents is the word "sexual". The logic of your argument (and those of the Pilger/Benn/Loach set) is that the credibility of a rape accusation should be judged by how much one approves or disapproves of the political stance of the accused. That's a shoddy line of argument,and really crap sexual politics, surely?

If Assange is found guilty of sexual misconduct, it's not going to be put forward as a mass exoneration of US crimes in Iraq. It's possible that someone can be a serious, responsible investigative journalist and a rapist at the same time, I suppose. Right now, Assange definitely isn't the former, but until he faces his day in a court of law no one has the right to say whether he is or isn't the latter.

The only people predjudging Assange on this thread are you, Doddie and others, who have preacquitted him as well

Hi Khib ! :greengrin I woulld hardly describe Women Against Rape as Assange supporters, but even they recognise that the sexual misconduct allegations are being manipulated by politicians and the media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

marinello59
26-08-2012, 07:40 PM
Hi Khib ! :greengrin I woulld hardly describe Women Against Rape as Assange supporters, but even they recognise that the sexual misconduct allegations are being manipulated by politicians and the media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

What do you think about Galloway's views on rape and his attempt to re-define what rape is?

Wilson
27-08-2012, 09:15 AM
Julian assange guest starred in tonight's 500th Simpsons episode

Well if I hear he's gotten heavy with Edna he'll have more than extradition to worry about!

Beefster
27-08-2012, 04:45 PM
Ecuador may be about to send a political refugee back to Belarus to face a potential death penalty. Yet more hypocrisy to be ignored by Assange supporters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ecuador-could-send-dissident-back-to-belarus-8082017.html

--------
27-08-2012, 05:20 PM
Hi Khib ! :greengrin I woulld hardly describe Women Against Rape as Assange supporters, but even they recognise that the sexual misconduct allegations are being manipulated by politicians and the media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

What WAR are quoted as saying in that article pretty well sums it up for me.

Good article - Assange may be open to accusations of hypocrisy, but if he IS a hypocrite, he's got plenty of company on all sides.

Eyrie
04-09-2012, 06:57 PM
Some good news at least - Ecuador has decided against extraditing Barankov to Belarus.

And another good article from the New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange), looking at the legal situation regarding Assange.

khib70
05-09-2012, 02:22 PM
Ecuador may be about to send a political refugee back to Belarus to face a potential death penalty. Yet more hypocrisy to be ignored by Assange supporters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ecuador-could-send-dissident-back-to-belarus-8082017.html
Agreed.

This however may not be happening - although I doubt that is down to Assange.

You can read about Ecuador's courageous stance on press freedom, symbolised by their protection of Assange here

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/21/ecuador-blow-free-speech

Let's face it, an Ecuadorian Assange would be rotting in some prison hell-hole by now, or would have disappeared, to be found face down in a ditch a year later.

I think he basically chose them because their embassy building had a nice balcony for declaiming to the world from.

hibsbollah
19-09-2012, 03:49 PM
In that case I think you will be disappointed then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyBcqPwuQE8

Benn changes his mind...
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/09/18/tony-benn-sorry-for-dismissing-assange-rape-allegations/

hibsbollah
21-09-2012, 07:45 PM
The Filmhouse is doing a special showing of Wikileaks-Secrets and Lies on September 30th at 5:40, director Patrick Forbes will be leading a discussion and taking questions on it afterwards.

Assange himself, that famous defender of freedom of expression, has withdrawn cooperation and been threatening the small film company and independent film festival responsible with legal action.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sT6rejmcuRGVOI7nF8dg6uA/view.m?id=15&gid=media/2012/sep/11/julian-assange-legal-action-south-southwest&cat=media

One Day Soon
21-09-2012, 08:35 PM
The Filmhouse is doing a special showing of Wikileaks-Secrets and Lies on September 30th at 5:40, director Patrick Forbes will be leading a discussion and taking questions on it afterwards.

Assange himself, that famous defender of freedom of expression, has withdrawn cooperation and been threatening the small film company and independent film festival responsible with legal action.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sT6rejmcuRGVOI7nF8dg6uA/view.m?id=15&gid=media/2012/sep/11/julian-assange-legal-action-south-southwest&cat=media


He really is an unusually revolting character. Reminds me a lot of the moralising ultra left of the Labour party in the 80s - humourless, wrong on almost every issue and spectacularly hypocritical.

hibsbollah
21-09-2012, 09:43 PM
He really is an unusually revolting character. Reminds me a lot of the moralising ultra left of the Labour party in the 80s - humourless, wrong on almost every issue and spectacularly hypocritical.

I dont see the connection between the 'ultra left' of the 80s :dunno: and Assange to be honest...he probably shares more in common with a media savvy macchiavellian schemer like Mandelson.

Betty Boop
22-09-2012, 05:46 PM
No DNA on the ripped condom.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--report-20120916-260vs.html

hibsbollah
09-02-2013, 11:11 AM
He's still hiding.

Quite amusing article here, (sorry, havent mastered hyperlinks on the new Bollah Smart but Dumb Phone)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/08/please-take-assange-to-stockholm-syndrome

(((Fergus)))
23-02-2014, 03:44 PM
Article by Andrew O'Hagan on ghostwriting the Assange autobiography for Canongate Books:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2014/02/21/andrew-ohagan/ghosting

hibsbollah
23-02-2014, 04:43 PM
Article by Andrew O'Hagan on ghostwriting the Assange autobiography for Canongate Books:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2014/02/21/andrew-ohagan/ghosting

Wow thats long! Got a quarter of the way through and it confirmed my opinion of the creepy narcissist.

Beefster
23-02-2014, 08:06 PM
Article by Andrew O'Hagan on ghostwriting the Assange autobiography for Canongate Books:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2014/02/21/andrew-ohagan/ghosting

That was a marathon but a good read. As hibsbollah says, it confirms the view of him but also makes him appear even worse.

A psychiatrist's wet dream - seems to be attracted to underage girls, sexual predator, narcissist, sexist, anti-Semite, paranoid and more.

Betty Boop
19-05-2017, 10:06 AM
Swedish prosecutors drop the rape investigation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/julian-assange-sweden-drop-charges-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy-london-sexaul-assault-rape-us-a7744181.html

Colr
19-05-2017, 07:21 PM
Swedish prosecutors drop the rape investigation.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/julian-assange-sweden-drop-charges-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy-london-sexaul-assault-rape-us-a7744181.html

To the dismay of the woman he (allegedly) raped.

G B Young
19-05-2017, 08:14 PM
Out of interest, how has he passed his time during his seven years in the embassy?? Is there some sort of back courtyard/garden he has access to or is has he been indoors the entire time? I think I recall reading he had gym equipment brought in and that overall he was pretty snug with food, internet access etc.

You'd imagine such a bizarre, confined way of life would do your head in after a while but then I guess you would gradually become acclimatised and given that he's been in there so long I wonder if he's actually developed a sort of 'institutionalised' mindset and might actually find it hard to adjust to the real world were he ever to re-enter it.

Just Alf
19-05-2017, 08:17 PM
Out of interest, how has he passed his time during his seven years in the embassy?? Is there some sort of back courtyard/garden he has access to or is has he been indoors the entire time? I think I recall reading he had gym equipment brought in and that overall he was pretty snug with food, internet access etc.

You'd imagine such a bizarre, confined way of life would do your head in after a while but then I guess you would gradually become acclimatised and given that he's been in there so long I wonder if he's actually developed a sort of 'institutionalised' mindset and might actually find it hard to adjust to the real world were he ever to re-enter it.
Yeah I wondered that as well... If he'd gone back and taken the flak.. And been found guilty... How long would he have ended up in the pokey??

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Hibrandenburg
19-05-2017, 08:19 PM
Out of interest, how has he passed his time during his seven years in the embassy?? Is there some sort of back courtyard/garden he has access to or is has he been indoors the entire time? I think I recall reading he had gym equipment brought in and that overall he was pretty snug with food, internet access etc.

You'd imagine such a bizarre, confined way of life would do your head in after a while but then I guess you would gradually become acclimatised and given that he's been in there so long I wonder if he's actually developed a sort of 'institutionalised' mindset and might actually find it hard to adjust to the real world were he ever to re-enter it.

I'd imagine he's kept himself very busy.

marinello59
19-05-2017, 08:26 PM
To the dismay of the woman he (allegedly) raped.

Exactly. They must be devastated today.

Beefster
19-05-2017, 08:42 PM
I've settled on hypocritical, narcissistic, lying sex-pest.

marinello59
19-05-2017, 08:44 PM
I've settled on hypocritical, narcissistic, lying sex-pest.

I'll go with that too.

Jonnyboy
19-05-2017, 08:46 PM
I've settled on hypocritical, narcissistic, lying sex-pest.

Ditto :agree:

Pretty Boy
19-05-2017, 08:47 PM
I wonder if he will now keep his word and go to the US after Chelsea Manning was released?

I've no idea if Assange is a rapist but he's a throughly unpleasant individual. The very definition of a narcissist. There's plenty essays out there, from both left and right, about why he's far from the 'hero' some would have you believe.

CapitalGreen
19-05-2017, 10:44 PM
Out of interest, how has he passed his time during his seven years in the embassy?? Is there some sort of back courtyard/garden he has access to or is has he been indoors the entire time? I think I recall reading he had gym equipment brought in and that overall he was pretty snug with food, internet access etc.

You'd imagine such a bizarre, confined way of life would do your head in after a while but then I guess you would gradually become acclimatised and given that he's been in there so long I wonder if he's actually developed a sort of 'institutionalised' mindset and might actually find it hard to adjust to the real world were he ever to re-enter it.

He's completed Netflix.

Mr Grieves
19-05-2017, 11:10 PM
I've settled on hypocritical, narcissistic, lying sex-pest.

Bang on.

Haymaker
20-05-2017, 03:23 AM
He's completed Netflix.

I shouldn't laugh but...

NYHibby
20-05-2017, 09:38 AM
He's completed Netflix.

He's also completed the internet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uXtWIg_A7M

G B Young
20-05-2017, 01:59 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10376799/Julian-Assange-my-life-in-the-embassy.html

Colr
21-05-2017, 05:46 AM
I've settled on hypocritical, narcissistic, lying sex-pest.

Like Trump, then?

cabbageandribs1875
28-03-2018, 06:41 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43573694

Ecuador has cut Julian Assange's internet connection at its embassy in London, preventing him from communicating with the outside world.

The move is to prevent the WikiLeaks founder from interfering in other countries' affairs, Ecuador said.



cut the cowardly b******s electricity, food and water supply next :agree: then stop any oxygen supply to his room

Colr
29-03-2018, 06:20 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43573694

Ecuador has cut Julian Assange's internet connection at its embassy in London, preventing him from communicating with the outside world.

The move is to prevent the WikiLeaks founder from interfering in other countries' affairs, Ecuador said.



cut the cowardly b******s electricity, food and water supply next :agree: then stop any oxygen supply to his room
Cut the coward’s bollocks. Sex pest!