| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 08:10 Half wrote: Gandhi was a wifebeater and MLK was an adulterer. Indeed. If they were accused of related crimes I would have wanted them to answer the warrants as opposed to being very angry about bitches working for the CIA. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On December 02 2010 08:12 Nitan wrote: Indeed. If they were accused of related crimes I would have wanted them to answer the warrants as opposed to being very angry about bitches working for the CIA. Adultery isn't a crime. Or sexual proclivities for that matter. Honestly I don't blame him for not turning himself into a state. Would you when mainstream western politicians have openly called for your assassination on mainstream television? | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 08:15 Half wrote: Adultery isn't a crime. Or sexual proclivities for that matter. I believe it was when MLK was live. At least in was in America. Beating your spouse is still a crime too. Regardless, Assange is accused of rape. A judge has issued a warrant for him. While he's innocent until proven guilty the attitude that he shouldn't have to answer the allegations is absurd. The reasoning I've seen for why he shouldn't answer is a bit misogynistic too. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Regardless, Assange is accused of rape. A judge has issued a warrant for him. While he's innocent until proven guilty the attitude that he shouldn't have to answer the allegations is absurd. The reasoning I've seen for why he shouldn't answer is a bit misogynistic too. What part about it is "absurd"? It comes down to a question of whether or not he trusts the justice system to make a fair ruling, and the current situation does not suggest they will. Even in normal circumstances, Rape trials in consensual sex turned rape usually come down to his word versus hers, meaning the outcome is never clear cut, they are known to be either notorious difficult to prove, or lead to wrong convictions, so the fact that he is an enemy of almost every single western aligned country does not help his case. | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 08:26 Half wrote: What part about it is "absurd"? It comes down to a question of whether or not he trusts the justice system to make a fair ruling, and the current situation does not suggest they will. Even in normal circumstances, Rape trials in consensual sex turned rape usually come down to his word versus hers, meaning the outcome is never clear cut, they are known to be either notorious difficult to prove, or lead to wrong convictions, so the fact that he is an enemy of almost every single western aligned country does not help his case. So...is it that rape cases are hard for the prosecution to prove or that there are a significant number of wrong convictions? It's not up to him to decide if he thinks the justice system is fair or not. He was in Sweden. Swedish citizens alleged he committed a crime in there. He has to go and answer them. This is the sort of absurd reasoning that let Roman Polanski go free again. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On December 02 2010 08:30 Nitan wrote: So...is it that rape cases are hard for the prosecution to prove or that there are a significant number of wrong convictions? It's not up to him to decide if he thinks the justice system is fair or not. He was in Sweden. Swedish citizens alleged he committed a crime in there. He has to go and answer them. This is the sort of absurd reasoning that let Roman Polanski go free again. What do you mean it isn't up for him to decide. He decides and then the public judges whether his decision is justified. Would you go to a Nazi court if you were a jew, or flee the country? In this case, you are accused of a crime, but do not feel like they will make a fair ruling, so you flee, and your decision is vindicated by public support. The same general principal applies, and I am saying that his situation is sufficiently unfair to vindicate him. You have to argue that under current situations he will receive a fair trial. Even ignoring the fairness of the trial, turning himself into the total power of governments at this point is highly problematic. For instance, they could deny him bail deeming him a flight risk, and then keep him locked up in a delayed trial for months if not years, completely within the confines of there legal system, ignoring any possible "extrajudicial" actions they may chose to take. So...is it that rape cases are hard for the prosecution to prove or that there are a significant number of wrong convictions? Incidentally, both. The point in that being that rape trials are often not based on clear cut evidence, especially when they agreed to consensual sex first. | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
On December 02 2010 08:30 Nitan wrote: So...is it that rape cases are hard for the prosecution to prove or that there are a significant number of wrong convictions? It's not up to him to decide if he thinks the justice system is fair or not. He was in Sweden. Swedish citizens alleged he committed a crime in there. He has to go and answer them. This is the sort of absurd reasoning that let Roman Polanski go free again. The fairness of the judicial system is definitely a factor in deciding whether or not a suspect ought to be extradited. If it wasn't, every repressive regime in the world would get their exiled dissidents back merely by accusing them of traffic violations or mass murder or child molestation, or whatever they think can stick. In this particular case, Assange is pretty much taken over the government's Official Enemy slot from Osama Bin Laden, Currently the US' political police, the FBI, seems to be trawling the law books attempting to pin some crime on this guy that won't be immediately nixed by the first amendment - he's hardly likely to receive impartial treatment by them, and there are politicians in various countries demanding that Assange be treated as a terrorist, hunted down, executed for treason, or even assassinated. There are definitely a bunch of countries where he's unlikely to receive a fair trial - the only real question is whether Sweden is one of those countries. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
| ||
|
betaben
681 Posts
| ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 08:41 Aim Here wrote: The fairness of the judicial system is definitely a factor in deciding whether or not a suspect ought to be extradited. If it wasn't, every repressive regime in the world would get their exiled dissidents back merely by accusing them of traffic violations or mass murder or child molestation, or whatever they think can stick. In this particular case, Assange is pretty much taken over the government's Official Enemy slot from Osama Bin Laden, Currently the US' political police, the FBI, seems to be trawling the law books attempting to pin some crime on this guy that won't be immediately nixed by the first amendment - he's hardly likely to receive impartial treatment by them, and there are politicians in various countries demanding that Assange be treated as a terrorist, hunted down, executed for treason, or even assassinated. There are definitely a bunch of countries where he's unlikely to receive a fair trial - the only real question is whether Sweden is one of those countries. Given that there is unlikely to be extradition treaties with such nations your fears seem unfounded. Likewise, your expectations about what the FBI and the "political police", whatever that is, seem a bit silly too. The FBI is busy making fake terrorist plots. I don't know what the political police are so I can't say what they're doing. Regardless, it's not America's warrant and the idea of him being prosecuted for a Swedish rape case here is absurd. Why would the Swedish not give him a fair trial? I am assuming he'll be getting a jury trial and while there may be some bias against the Australian as opposed to citizens it's not even close to enough for him to justify avoiding a warrant. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:03 betaben wrote: didn't he get accused of that ages ago, and a judge let him go because the case was laughable? Well, in the name of balance, they dropped all those charges except sexual harassment, a misdemeanor. The fact that they are reopening the case is reason to be suspicious in itself. Why would the Swedish not give him a fair trial? I am assuming he'll be getting a jury trial and while there may be some bias against the Australian as opposed to citizens it's not even close to enough for him to justify avoiding a warrant. I'd say that being the enemy of practically every single western power and the recipient of many death threats from well known politicians, including a former American VP candidate does however, as well as repeated threats and thinly veiled intimidation by the CIA on him and other volunteers of wikileaks, does however. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On December 02 2010 08:10 Half wrote: It was an attack on corrupt self serving politicians and diplomats. No it wasn't. The vast majority of the cables were irrelevant and nonoffensive. It was an attack on the infrastructure of diplomacy. Consequences: (1) less trust amongst nations to broker negotiations, leading to a marginal increase in the probability of armed conflict, (2) increased security of these diplomatic lines of communication, lessening the flow of information between States, (3) nothing important to be said will be written down, causing less transparency in the long run. It is well recognized that guarantees of privacy increase the flow of candid and honest advice. When those guarantees break down, people are more likely to respond with less information, not more. That, of course, appears to be the goal of a nihilist group like wikileaks. A few years ago, when I first encountered the site, I thought it was a great idea to have a completely anonymous site to make it easier for whistleblowers to disseminate information. Wikileaks no longer serves that function with its leader now so prominent and its whistleblowing function taking a backseat. The target in this latest dump is especially heinous given that history has shown time and time again what happens when diplomacy breaks down. | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
On December 02 2010 08:56 domovoi wrote: Uh, Sweden being one of the most civic-minded and successful liberal democracies in the world, I can't imagine in which jurisdiction a trial would be more fair. We're not talking about Afghanistan or Zimbabwe here. Don't be naive, something smells rotten about these charges for sure, I mean come on.. "Wanted by interpol" for alleged rape? Dropped, reopened. That he somehow managed to rape TWO women in TWO days in Sweden.. Why the hell would this man risk that right smack in his big moment of fame so to speak. Either way these people (who leaked the documents, and making it possible) are heroes. Stuff like this makes the government fear the people! EDIT: There have been a lot of changes to rape charges in sweden lately. For a while they were discussing something that would end up with "guilty until proven otherwise". EDIT2: Lol^, every time "democracy" goes under it fcked up and needs a good kick in the arse. I think it's time tbh. The politicians has had their fun for now, let the relationship reset again. Then we wait for them to become corrupt again and another Wikileaks steps forward. EDIT3: I think some people who loves the swedish court forget PirateBay. They actually don't have a case according to swedish law (nor should they. They're A SEARCH ENGINE FFS. Soon someone will sue google for sure, same charges same case). They got sentenced purely on | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
The target in this latest dump is especially heinous given that history has shown time and time again what happens when diplomacy breaks down. So you're citing the leak that allowed U.S. to fight against Germany in World War 1 as a negative consequence of leaking? rofl. what an atrocity. | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:11 tnud wrote: Don't be naive, something smells rotten about these charges for sure, I mean come on.. Wanted by interpol for alleged rape? Dropped, reopened. That he somehow managed to rape TWO women in TWO days in Sweden.. Why the hell would this man risk that right smack in his big moment of fame so to speak. Either way these people (who leaked the documents, and making it possible) are heroes. Stuff like this makes the government fear the people! EDIT: There have been a lot of changes to rape charges in sweden lately. For a while they were discussing something that would end up with "guilty until proven otherwise". He's not wanted by Interpol. Interpol is just reporting that the Swedish have a warrant on him. Having sex with two women isn't exactly some sort of impossibility. Maybe the first prosecutor was a misogynist. Maybe the second one wants a shot at glory. Regardless, the judge issued the warrant. | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:14 Half wrote: So you're citing the leak that allowed U.S. to fight against Germany in World War 1 as a negative consequence of leaking? rofl. what an atrocity. Yeah, America interfering in WWI was pretty bad in that it preserved the atrocious British Empire and created a punitive peace that led to WWII. | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:04 Nitan wrote: Given that there is unlikely to be extradition treaties with such nations your fears seem unfounded. Likewise, your expectations about what the FBI and the "political police", whatever that is, seem a bit silly too. The FBI is busy making fake terrorist plots. I don't know what the political police are so I can't say what they're doing. Regardless, it's not America's warrant and the idea of him being prosecuted for a Swedish rape case here is absurd. The FBI is America's political police (If you think they're politically impartial, just google for COINTELPRO sometime). And I don't know what you're talking about with 'fake terrorist plots' or being busy - there are mainstream news articles (like this one) saying that the FBI is trawling the lawbooks looking for something to hit Assange with. And if Assange gets caught in an unfriendly jurisdiction, he might end up being extradited to the US afterwards. In fact, he might get deported to Australia without even the need for extradition Why would the Swedish not give him a fair trial? I am assuming he'll be getting a jury trial and while there may be some bias against the Australian as opposed to citizens it's not even close to enough for him to justify avoiding a warrant. Sweden is a western-aligned government and it may be being pressured by the US to nobble the trial or it might just want to do it as a favour - if you want to see an example of a Western, supposedly law-abiding country assuring the United States that an independent tribunal has apparently been nobbled in America's favour, then you can peek at 09LONDON2198 in the cables, where a British civil servant assures the US ambassador that they had "put measures in place to protect your interests" in regards to the supposedly independent Chilcott inquiry into the Iraq war. Whether Sweden is susceptible to this sort of thing, I have no idea, but with the odd timing and conduct of the allegations (they started immediately after one of the previous major leaks, the charges were changed and then dropped and reinstated, and then a warrant issued immedately after this leak), the thought definitely ought to arise in any sufficiently imaginative individual. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:21 Nitan wrote: Yeah, America interfering in WWI was pretty bad in that it preserved the atrocious British Empire and created a punitive peace that led to WWII. Why do people always cite academically controversial theories as facts? | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:30 Half wrote: Why do people always cite academically controversial theories as facts? I got this one! It's fun :D Edited my above post just pointing at tpb case when looking at the swedish court system. EDIT: Oh, I should totally have read that before I posted, there is nothing controversial about that document lol. Noone is denying that the settlement after WW1 was bad either... | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:30 Half wrote: Why do people always cite academically controversial theories as facts? What is controversial? Do you deny the British Empire persisted or that it was atrocious? Do you deny there was a punitive peace? If not, do you deny it helped lead to WWII? | ||
| ||
|
|
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Shine vs Rush
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
