|
On August 17 2012 02:45 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:On August 17 2012 02:09 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:53 Trowa127 wrote:On August 17 2012 01:44 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:17 Zennith wrote:On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Funny to see people stand up for the guy who may or may not have raped a girl. I dont care what dirty secrets he uncover. The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE" He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime. So if he "didn't" why run from the law, citing the "there going to kill me because i uncovered secrets plee" i think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, there is so many human rights crap you can pull on the wikileaks case, but he knows if he gets found guilty of child rape he will be found guilty no matter what. I think he is hiding for a reason and must be giving Ecudar alot of money to stay hiding. Ok, people really need to look up what he's actually accused off. Throwing around the words 'child rape' is ridiculous, it was consensual sex and only later did the Women decide to bring a complaint against him. If I was him, I'd be scared of extradition as well, the U.S and the U.K have no problem murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, you think a politically motivated extradition is out of the question? And one-one-one - why is that an issue? What right do the government have to invade our private lives? Some people don't reference 1984 and still make completely valid arguments. Our governments show a complete lack of regard for human rights and international law, and then people are suprised that someone might be scared of them? Is this really so hard to follow? The whole 'anyone who cares about their right to privacy is a conspiracy theoring wielding nutjob' thing is getting so, so old. Its just a back stop when you can't come up with a real argument. For the 10% that ruin our lives doing countless crimes and all the other illegal crap, the policing of the world is having to go this far to find out what and who is breaking the law, and what and who are plotting to do stuff (terrorist sense) To have a safer world for people to "invade my privacy" i could not care less, im all for them invading anything they want of mine i have nothing to hide, feel free, especially if it helps catch the 10% that is ruining it for the rest of us. http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/Commentators often attempt to refute the nothing-to-hide argument by pointing to things people want to hide. But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. By accepting this assumption, we concede far too much ground and invite an unproductive discussion about information that people would very likely want to hide. As the computer-security specialist Schneier aptly notes, the nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty "premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong." Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy. Well that is some shocking article lmao. I still am all for anything like ID Cards, or mass CCTV camera's because unlike some i have experinced crime and nothing been done about it because not enough CCTV camera's on or anything, from silly things such as my bike being stolen or (not me my auntie) having her car hit whilst she was parked in a car park and the driver drove off and left her to pay the bill which was not her fault. To the bottom quote, you really think the police have enough man power to come after you for swearing in public or saying "fuck the police" or something as petty as that? I don't think so..
Fair enough. I think we should all write down our real names and addresses here, then. You know, in case one of us posts child porn. It'll help stop crime. Trust me. If you aren't posting child porn, what do you really have to hide? Right?
|
EDIT: double post by mistake
|
On August 17 2012 03:34 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:33 hzflank wrote:On August 17 2012 03:24 Breavman wrote:On August 17 2012 03:19 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 03:13 Breavman wrote:On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. He is not suspected of rape or molestation, that's just a matter of bad translations. It's about two cases of sexual misconduct and one case of sexual assault I belive. It sounds like this is word against word between Assange and the women, and if he would just go to Sweden he could very well be cleared. And if not, they are not that serious charges. Sweden would not extradit him to US - it's against the law and it would make Sweden look very very bad internationally. Why it would make look Sweden bad internationally? It would only look bad by some left-winged guys who are irrelevant. Other countries with power wouldn't care. Ever since WW2 Sweden has taken pride in being the neutral country with high morals and an unbiased voice. (Quite stupidly in my opinion and certainly not always in accordance with the actions taken.) But giving away Assange would prove that Sweden are just American lap dogs, showing they can't be trusted and harming other diplomatic relations.
They did, but then withdrew their comment some time later.
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#WSJA
Then why has the Swedish government refused to guarantee that they would not hand Assange over to the US authorities?
|
On August 17 2012 03:13 Breavman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. He is not suspected of rape or molestation, that's just a matter of bad translations. It's about two cases of sexual misconduct and one case of sexual assault I belive. It sounds like this is word against word between Assange and the women, and if he would just go to Sweden he could very well be cleared. And if not, they are not that serious charges. Sweden would not extradit him to US - it's against the law and it would make Sweden look very very bad internationally.
It is not a matter of bad translations. It is a matter of good manipulation.
|
Hmm so what has happened so far? I haven't been updated on this case for over a year.
|
On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation.
Well thank god you were there so you know everything that happened!!! Why didn't you step up 2 years ago and this whole mess could've been avoided!!!
...
If he is so afraid of getting extradited to the USA from Sweden why did he praise our country so much, placed his wikileaks servers here and even stayed for some time freely in Sweden?
... This whole idea of Sweden extraditing him is such a big lie, if USA wanted him so badly they would've talked to UK since they have a closer relationship.
Assange is a coward, who doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he did and now he is trying to make a circus out of it.
This is the guy who wanted the truth to come out and for people to stand for their actions. Yet he is unwilling to do so himself.
|
On August 17 2012 02:45 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:On August 17 2012 02:09 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:53 Trowa127 wrote:On August 17 2012 01:44 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:17 Zennith wrote:On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Funny to see people stand up for the guy who may or may not have raped a girl. I dont care what dirty secrets he uncover. The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE" He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime. So if he "didn't" why run from the law, citing the "there going to kill me because i uncovered secrets plee" i think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, there is so many human rights crap you can pull on the wikileaks case, but he knows if he gets found guilty of child rape he will be found guilty no matter what. I think he is hiding for a reason and must be giving Ecudar alot of money to stay hiding. Ok, people really need to look up what he's actually accused off. Throwing around the words 'child rape' is ridiculous, it was consensual sex and only later did the Women decide to bring a complaint against him. If I was him, I'd be scared of extradition as well, the U.S and the U.K have no problem murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, you think a politically motivated extradition is out of the question? And one-one-one - why is that an issue? What right do the government have to invade our private lives? Some people don't reference 1984 and still make completely valid arguments. Our governments show a complete lack of regard for human rights and international law, and then people are suprised that someone might be scared of them? Is this really so hard to follow? The whole 'anyone who cares about their right to privacy is a conspiracy theoring wielding nutjob' thing is getting so, so old. Its just a back stop when you can't come up with a real argument. For the 10% that ruin our lives doing countless crimes and all the other illegal crap, the policing of the world is having to go this far to find out what and who is breaking the law, and what and who are plotting to do stuff (terrorist sense) To have a safer world for people to "invade my privacy" i could not care less, im all for them invading anything they want of mine i have nothing to hide, feel free, especially if it helps catch the 10% that is ruining it for the rest of us. http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/Commentators often attempt to refute the nothing-to-hide argument by pointing to things people want to hide. But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. By accepting this assumption, we concede far too much ground and invite an unproductive discussion about information that people would very likely want to hide. As the computer-security specialist Schneier aptly notes, the nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty "premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong." Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy. Well that is some shocking article lmao. I still am all for anything like ID Cards, or mass CCTV camera's because unlike some i have experinced crime and nothing been done about it because not enough CCTV camera's on or anything, from silly things such as my bike being stolen or (not me my auntie) having her car hit whilst she was parked in a car park and the driver drove off and left her to pay the bill which was not her fault. To the bottom quote, you really think the police have enough man power to come after you for swearing in public or saying "fuck the police" or something as petty as that? I don't think so..
No one cares about the petty stuff, people have issue with privacy when it comes down to more important things. Like things which could damage people in power, but still should be heard.
I have experience crime as well, but I didn't think about surrendering all my rights to stop it. I hate quoting people as I think its overdone, but here, it just fits:
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. Benjamin Franklin
|
On August 17 2012 03:33 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:17 Zahir wrote:Poll: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden?No (61) 91% Yes (6) 9% 67 total votes Your vote: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Curious on people's opinions on this, given that US elite opinion is dead set against him, and many commentators here believe that those who leak "security" secrets should face the death penalty. Sweden is known for being a pretty neutral country, but as many here have pointed out, their behavior has been more than a little nonstandard/out of character in this particular case. Also, grow up. Its Sweden ffs. It would look awful for them and the usa if Assange suddenly disappears.
And what would anyone do, nothing. This thing would be forgotten in a couple of months. Makes me not so proud to live in the western world tbh.
|
Is there anyone from the USA here who think it's justified that Bradley Manning is detained without trial now for over 800 days?
|
On August 17 2012 03:37 DwD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. Well thank god you were there so you know everything that happened!!! Why didn't you step up 2 years ago and this whole mess could've been avoided!!! ... If he is so afraid of getting extradited to the USA from Sweden why did he praise our country so much, placed his wikileaks servers here and even stayed for some time freely in Sweden? ... This whole idea of Sweden extraditing him is such a big lie, if USA wanted him so badly they would've talked to UK since they have a closer relationship. Assange is a coward, who doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he did and now he is trying to make a circus out of it. This is the guy who wanted the truth to come out and for people to stand for their actions. Yet he is unwilling to do so himself.
Stand up for what he did?
Are you aware he hasn't been convicted(well by you he has, but not a court in Sweden) and its his word against the people who accused him. I'm pretty sure he is scared of the death penalty in the US rather than the molestation charges in Sweden
|
Y'all conspiracy theorists are amateurs. I can do better:
So Assange is holed up in an ecuadorian embassy, right? And Britain has threatened to use force to extract him, right? So what if Ecuador refuses to give him up despite that and Britain storms the place? And what if... wait for it... what if Assange is accidentally killed during the raid?
Britain, Ecuador and Sweden are ALL in on this.
|
On August 17 2012 03:33 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:24 Breavman wrote:On August 17 2012 03:19 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 03:13 Breavman wrote:On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. He is not suspected of rape or molestation, that's just a matter of bad translations. It's about two cases of sexual misconduct and one case of sexual assault I belive. It sounds like this is word against word between Assange and the women, and if he would just go to Sweden he could very well be cleared. And if not, they are not that serious charges. Sweden would not extradit him to US - it's against the law and it would make Sweden look very very bad internationally. Why it would make look Sweden bad internationally? It would only look bad by some left-winged guys who are irrelevant. Other countries with power wouldn't care. Ever since WW2 Sweden has taken pride in being the neutral country with high morals and an unbiased voice. (Quite stupidly in my opinion and certainly not always in accordance with the actions taken.) But giving away Assange would prove that Sweden are just American lap dogs, showing they can't be trusted and harming other diplomatic relations. Then why has the Swedish government refused to guarantee that they would not hand Assange over to the US authorities?
It could be because the government has simply not involved itself in this case and has left it to the authoritis which it concernes. But I honestly don't have enough knowledge to give a firm answer to your question.
|
On August 17 2012 03:39 Zandar wrote:
Is there anyone from the USA here who think it's justified that Bradley Manning is detained without trial now for over 800 days?
Exactly. 'Nuff said?
|
On August 17 2012 03:41 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:37 DwD wrote:On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. Well thank god you were there so you know everything that happened!!! Why didn't you step up 2 years ago and this whole mess could've been avoided!!! ... If he is so afraid of getting extradited to the USA from Sweden why did he praise our country so much, placed his wikileaks servers here and even stayed for some time freely in Sweden? ... This whole idea of Sweden extraditing him is such a big lie, if USA wanted him so badly they would've talked to UK since they have a closer relationship. Assange is a coward, who doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he did and now he is trying to make a circus out of it. This is the guy who wanted the truth to come out and for people to stand for their actions. Yet he is unwilling to do so himself. Stand up for what he did? Are you aware he hasn't been convicted(well by you he has, but not a court in Sweden) and its his word against the people who accused him. I'm pretty sure he is scared of the death penalty in the US rather than the molestation charges in Sweden
I'm very well aware that he hasn't been convicted. Because if he showed up I'm pretty sure he would. If he is scared of the death penalty why is he in the UK to begin with? You know they can extradite him much easier than Sweden can?
Don't you think the 2 women deserve their day in court?
|
On August 17 2012 03:43 DwD wrote:
Don't you think the 2 women deserve their day in court?
Not until charges are pressed. Based solely on allegations? No.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On August 17 2012 03:33 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:45 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 02:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:On August 17 2012 02:09 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:53 Trowa127 wrote:On August 17 2012 01:44 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:17 Zennith wrote:On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Funny to see people stand up for the guy who may or may not have raped a girl. I dont care what dirty secrets he uncover. The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE" He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime. So if he "didn't" why run from the law, citing the "there going to kill me because i uncovered secrets plee" i think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, there is so many human rights crap you can pull on the wikileaks case, but he knows if he gets found guilty of child rape he will be found guilty no matter what. I think he is hiding for a reason and must be giving Ecudar alot of money to stay hiding. Ok, people really need to look up what he's actually accused off. Throwing around the words 'child rape' is ridiculous, it was consensual sex and only later did the Women decide to bring a complaint against him. If I was him, I'd be scared of extradition as well, the U.S and the U.K have no problem murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, you think a politically motivated extradition is out of the question? And one-one-one - why is that an issue? What right do the government have to invade our private lives? Some people don't reference 1984 and still make completely valid arguments. Our governments show a complete lack of regard for human rights and international law, and then people are suprised that someone might be scared of them? Is this really so hard to follow? The whole 'anyone who cares about their right to privacy is a conspiracy theoring wielding nutjob' thing is getting so, so old. Its just a back stop when you can't come up with a real argument. For the 10% that ruin our lives doing countless crimes and all the other illegal crap, the policing of the world is having to go this far to find out what and who is breaking the law, and what and who are plotting to do stuff (terrorist sense) To have a safer world for people to "invade my privacy" i could not care less, im all for them invading anything they want of mine i have nothing to hide, feel free, especially if it helps catch the 10% that is ruining it for the rest of us. http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/Commentators often attempt to refute the nothing-to-hide argument by pointing to things people want to hide. But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. By accepting this assumption, we concede far too much ground and invite an unproductive discussion about information that people would very likely want to hide. As the computer-security specialist Schneier aptly notes, the nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty "premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong." Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy. Well that is some shocking article lmao. I still am all for anything like ID Cards, or mass CCTV camera's because unlike some i have experinced crime and nothing been done about it because not enough CCTV camera's on or anything, from silly things such as my bike being stolen or (not me my auntie) having her car hit whilst she was parked in a car park and the driver drove off and left her to pay the bill which was not her fault. To the bottom quote, you really think the police have enough man power to come after you for swearing in public or saying "fuck the police" or something as petty as that? I don't think so.. Fair enough. I think we should all write down our real names and addresses here, then. You know, in case one of us posts child porn. It'll help stop crime. Trust me. If you aren't posting child porn, what do you really have to hide? Right?
Im all for that it if it went to the right people, i would not post it on team liquid so any old smuck can prank call me or send me stupid shit in the post lol. I would however have no problems giving out my personal information to goverments and what not if it was "to keep me safe" i don't get what the argument at all can be against not having ur "information" invaded, i mean what is there that they can manipulate and abuse?
On August 17 2012 03:39 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 02:45 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 02:25 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:On August 17 2012 02:09 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:53 Trowa127 wrote:On August 17 2012 01:44 Pandemona wrote:On August 17 2012 01:17 Zennith wrote:On August 17 2012 00:58 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Funny to see people stand up for the guy who may or may not have raped a girl. I dont care what dirty secrets he uncover. The key phrase here is "OR MAY NOT HAVE" He hasn't even been fucking charged with a crime. So if he "didn't" why run from the law, citing the "there going to kill me because i uncovered secrets plee" i think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole, there is so many human rights crap you can pull on the wikileaks case, but he knows if he gets found guilty of child rape he will be found guilty no matter what. I think he is hiding for a reason and must be giving Ecudar alot of money to stay hiding. Ok, people really need to look up what he's actually accused off. Throwing around the words 'child rape' is ridiculous, it was consensual sex and only later did the Women decide to bring a complaint against him. If I was him, I'd be scared of extradition as well, the U.S and the U.K have no problem murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, you think a politically motivated extradition is out of the question? And one-one-one - why is that an issue? What right do the government have to invade our private lives? Some people don't reference 1984 and still make completely valid arguments. Our governments show a complete lack of regard for human rights and international law, and then people are suprised that someone might be scared of them? Is this really so hard to follow? The whole 'anyone who cares about their right to privacy is a conspiracy theoring wielding nutjob' thing is getting so, so old. Its just a back stop when you can't come up with a real argument. For the 10% that ruin our lives doing countless crimes and all the other illegal crap, the policing of the world is having to go this far to find out what and who is breaking the law, and what and who are plotting to do stuff (terrorist sense) To have a safer world for people to "invade my privacy" i could not care less, im all for them invading anything they want of mine i have nothing to hide, feel free, especially if it helps catch the 10% that is ruining it for the rest of us. http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/Commentators often attempt to refute the nothing-to-hide argument by pointing to things people want to hide. But the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. By accepting this assumption, we concede far too much ground and invite an unproductive discussion about information that people would very likely want to hide. As the computer-security specialist Schneier aptly notes, the nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty "premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong." Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy. Well that is some shocking article lmao. I still am all for anything like ID Cards, or mass CCTV camera's because unlike some i have experinced crime and nothing been done about it because not enough CCTV camera's on or anything, from silly things such as my bike being stolen or (not me my auntie) having her car hit whilst she was parked in a car park and the driver drove off and left her to pay the bill which was not her fault. To the bottom quote, you really think the police have enough man power to come after you for swearing in public or saying "fuck the police" or something as petty as that? I don't think so.. No one cares about the petty stuff, people have issue with privacy when it comes down to more important things. Like things which could damage people in power, but still should be heard. I have experience crime as well, but I didn't think about surrendering all my rights to stop it. I hate quoting people as I think its overdone, but here, it just fits: He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. Benjamin Franklin
Nice quote from the 1700s...
So whats your argument on not letting people know what your sending in a text message, or maybe once in a blue moon listening in on a phone call? Whats wrong with that? Or seeing what you browse on the internet? Or looking at you on a CCTV camera at 11pm a night walking home from a pub or something? I have yet to be told a proper reason as to why this would be a bad idea?
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On August 17 2012 03:37 DwD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. Well thank god you were there so you know everything that happened!!! Why didn't you step up 2 years ago and this whole mess could've been avoided!!! ... If he is so afraid of getting extradited to the USA from Sweden why did he praise our country so much, placed his wikileaks servers here and even stayed for some time freely in Sweden? ... This whole idea of Sweden extraditing him is such a big lie, if USA wanted him so badly they would've talked to UK since they have a closer relationship. Assange is a coward, who doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he did and now he is trying to make a circus out of it. This is the guy who wanted the truth to come out and for people to stand for their actions. Yet he is unwilling to do so himself.
Because the truth doesn't matter in this case. Is there any person on this planet who has read the facts about this case who seriously thinks that the accusations are not a joke? I don't think such a person exists.
But I mean, in North Korea maybe some people actually believe that Kim Jon Il was sent to earth from the stars. And maybe in Sweden some people believe that Assange commited a crime in said night. I mean you can't disprove any of these claims. Likelihood is about the same.
|
On August 17 2012 03:39 Daray wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:33 1Eris1 wrote:On August 17 2012 03:17 Zahir wrote:Poll: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden?No (61) 91% Yes (6) 9% 67 total votes Your vote: If you were assange would you risk returning to Sweden? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Curious on people's opinions on this, given that US elite opinion is dead set against him, and many commentators here believe that those who leak "security" secrets should face the death penalty. Sweden is known for being a pretty neutral country, but as many here have pointed out, their behavior has been more than a little nonstandard/out of character in this particular case. Also, grow up. Its Sweden ffs. It would look awful for them and the usa if Assange suddenly disappears. And what would anyone do, nothing. This thing would be forgotten in a couple of months. Makes me not so proud to live in the western world tbh.
And you know this how? Maybe if you didn't just read conspiracy blogs you'd see that there's a huge segment of the population over here whom are very disgusted with the way privacy is being eroded and Assange's sudden death would be a huge uproar.
|
On August 17 2012 03:43 DwD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:41 Scheme wrote:On August 17 2012 03:37 DwD wrote:On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. Well thank god you were there so you know everything that happened!!! Why didn't you step up 2 years ago and this whole mess could've been avoided!!! ... If he is so afraid of getting extradited to the USA from Sweden why did he praise our country so much, placed his wikileaks servers here and even stayed for some time freely in Sweden? ... This whole idea of Sweden extraditing him is such a big lie, if USA wanted him so badly they would've talked to UK since they have a closer relationship. Assange is a coward, who doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he did and now he is trying to make a circus out of it. This is the guy who wanted the truth to come out and for people to stand for their actions. Yet he is unwilling to do so himself. Stand up for what he did? Are you aware he hasn't been convicted(well by you he has, but not a court in Sweden) and its his word against the people who accused him. I'm pretty sure he is scared of the death penalty in the US rather than the molestation charges in Sweden I'm very well aware that he hasn't been convicted. Because if he showed up I'm pretty sure he would. If he is scared of the death penalty why is he in the UK to begin with? You know they can extradite him much easier than Sweden can? Don't you think the 2 women deserve their day in court?
I do. I, in no way, think they should deny the right of them to go to court, should asange be charged. But its my understanding that they could interview him in the embassy, without him going back. Before deciding whether to charge him. Yet, they refused to do so.
You know they can extradite him much easier than Sweden can?
Clearly not. =P
|
On August 17 2012 03:37 DwD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 03:02 Fenrax wrote:
It is pretty ridiculous. I am very biased against rapists but this trial is just a joke. And everyone who defends the USA-Sweden-Great Britain connection should check the facts on this case first.
There was no rape. There was no molestation. Well thank god you were there so you know everything that happened!!! Why didn't you step up 2 years ago and this whole mess could've been avoided!!! ... If he is so afraid of getting extradited to the USA from Sweden why did he praise our country so much, placed his wikileaks servers here and even stayed for some time freely in Sweden? ... This whole idea of Sweden extraditing him is such a big lie, if USA wanted him so badly they would've talked to UK since they have a closer relationship. Assange is a coward, who doesn't have the courage to stand up for what he did and now he is trying to make a circus out of it. This is the guy who wanted the truth to come out and for people to stand for their actions. Yet he is unwilling to do so himself.
The US-Sweden extradition conventions are different from US-UK extradition conventions,
UK law is different from Sweden law,
His only risk in Sweden regarding these "rape" charges (if not putting on a condom is rape...) is a 1000€ fine.
So, do you think that everyone around him is so blind that they would throw hundred of thousands to help him to avoid that 1000€?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
