|
On August 17 2012 08:34 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:18 one-one-one wrote:
Sweden is likely on of the safer countries for JA, that was why he sought a residence permit here in the first place.
Funny how his supporters always dodges this fact.
It was safe for Wikileaks, but here what matters are extradition conventions, which are different in every country. Not only that, but Assange's status has changed since then, because his demands for a job and a residency permit were rejected and because he might become a convicted felon. I'm not a lawyer, but it is very possible that under those circumstances an extradition is possible and completely legal as long as you're not using a political reason. Now for the question you've been dodging : why do you think that a full team of top-notch lawyers and several world-renowned celebrities like Ken Loach are fighting for? Do you really think that it's... so that Assange can avoid that 1000€ bill? Is he that powerful? :p
I have absolutely no idea. I don't like the question though as it is based on a false premise.
I kinda answered this already though when I said that neither you nor I, or anyone else for that matter, knows what the eventual charges will be. This because the whole case against him is not presented yet as the process of justice is put on ice until he appears in Sweden. For all we know he might be facing higher fines than that or even prison depending what he is sentenced for.
|
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
|
On August 17 2012 08:52 Deshkar wrote:
UK's original threat to enter the embassy, US interest in shutting JA up and Sweden's inability to promise not to extradite JA to US and their silly "no condom" charges really messed up all my views of these countries-_-
Same here.
|
On August 17 2012 08:54 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:52 Deshkar wrote:
UK's original threat to enter the embassy, US interest in shutting JA up and Sweden's inability to promise not to extradite JA to US and their silly "no condom" charges really messed up all my views of these countries-_- Same here.
You are absolutely clueless if you expect Sweden to give such a promise. On the previous pages there are multiple posts by Swedish people explaining why Sweden simply can not and will not make such a promise.
It is very easy to sit in Singapore and Luxembourg and lose your respect for a country if you expect them to act against its own laws and systems.
|
On August 17 2012 08:52 Deshkar wrote:
UK's original threat to enter the embassy, US interest in shutting JA up and Sweden's inability to promise not to extradite JA to US and their silly "no condom" charges really messed up all my views of these countries-_-
Sorry? I'm pretty sure the reason there were charges was because he started having sex with them as they were asleep. That's considered rape. Did I miss something?
|
On August 17 2012 08:53 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:34 Kukaracha wrote:On August 17 2012 08:18 one-one-one wrote:
Sweden is likely on of the safer countries for JA, that was why he sought a residence permit here in the first place.
Funny how his supporters always dodges this fact.
It was safe for Wikileaks, but here what matters are extradition conventions, which are different in every country. Not only that, but Assange's status has changed since then, because his demands for a job and a residency permit were rejected and because he might become a convicted felon. I'm not a lawyer, but it is very possible that under those circumstances an extradition is possible and completely legal as long as you're not using a political reason. Now for the question you've been dodging : why do you think that a full team of top-notch lawyers and several world-renowned celebrities like Ken Loach are fighting for? Do you really think that it's... so that Assange can avoid that 1000€ bill? Is he that powerful? :p I have absolutely no idea. I don't like the question though as it is based on a false premise. I kinda answered this already though when I said that neither you nor I, or anyone else for that matter, knows what the eventual charges will be. This because the whole case against him is not presented yet as the process of justice is put on ice until he appears in Sweden. For all we know he might be facing higher fines than that or even prison depending what he is sentenced for.
It would be pretty far-fetched to think that it will go beyond that, given that the press has had access to pretty much most of the story. You're simply assuming that there's a dangerous hidden secret that could turn this very simple affair into something much bigger.
But more importantly, you're assuming that the intellectuals that surround and support Assange are all idiots he somehow hypnotized into defending him from the glorious Swedish justice. 
On August 17 2012 08:59 Euronyme wrote:
Sorry? I'm pretty sure the reason there were charges was because he started having sex with them as they were asleep. That's considered rape. Did I miss something?
The first and main charges were in fact the absence of condoms in two sexual relations.
They later added charges such as him using his body in an unpleasant way during sex, or poking one of them with his erection, or initiating sex while one was asleep, for unkown reasons (why you would suddenly decide, after three months, that that once time he joked around with his genitals is also a reason to sue him is beyond me).
Note that both women have stated that these events took place in the context of a consensual sexual relationship - which was even actively seeked by the second woman, who presented herself as an admirer.
So no, not rape, but sexual molestation maybe.
|
On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!"
you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument..
|
On August 17 2012 09:02 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:53 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 08:34 Kukaracha wrote:On August 17 2012 08:18 one-one-one wrote:
Sweden is likely on of the safer countries for JA, that was why he sought a residence permit here in the first place.
Funny how his supporters always dodges this fact.
It was safe for Wikileaks, but here what matters are extradition conventions, which are different in every country. Not only that, but Assange's status has changed since then, because his demands for a job and a residency permit were rejected and because he might become a convicted felon. I'm not a lawyer, but it is very possible that under those circumstances an extradition is possible and completely legal as long as you're not using a political reason. Now for the question you've been dodging : why do you think that a full team of top-notch lawyers and several world-renowned celebrities like Ken Loach are fighting for? Do you really think that it's... so that Assange can avoid that 1000€ bill? Is he that powerful? :p I have absolutely no idea. I don't like the question though as it is based on a false premise. I kinda answered this already though when I said that neither you nor I, or anyone else for that matter, knows what the eventual charges will be. This because the whole case against him is not presented yet as the process of justice is put on ice until he appears in Sweden. For all we know he might be facing higher fines than that or even prison depending what he is sentenced for. It would be pretty far-fetched to think that it will go beyond that, given that the press has had access to pretty much most of the story. You're simply assuming that there's a dangerous hidden secret that could turn this very simple affair into something much bigger. But more importantly, you're assuming that the intellectuals that surround and support Assange are all idiots he somehow hypnotized into defending him from the glorious Swedish justice. Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:59 Euronyme wrote:
Sorry? I'm pretty sure the reason there were charges was because he started having sex with them as they were asleep. That's considered rape. Did I miss something? The first and main charges were in fact the absence of condoms in two sexual relations. They later added charges such as him using his body in an unpleasant way during sex, or poking one of them with his erection, or initiating sex while one was asleep, for unkown reasons (why you would suddenly decide, after three months, that that once time he joked around with his genitals is also a reason to sue him is beyond me). Note that both women have stated that these events took place in the context of a consensual sexual relationship - which was even actively seeked by the second woman, who presented herself as an admirer. So no, not rape, but sexual molestation maybe.
whether or not there is rape is a question for the Swedish justice system to determine, not internet mobs.
i'm just going to keep copy pasting that in every time you feel like having your little impromptu court session here.
|
On August 17 2012 09:02 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:53 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 08:34 Kukaracha wrote:On August 17 2012 08:18 one-one-one wrote:
Sweden is likely on of the safer countries for JA, that was why he sought a residence permit here in the first place.
Funny how his supporters always dodges this fact.
It was safe for Wikileaks, but here what matters are extradition conventions, which are different in every country. Not only that, but Assange's status has changed since then, because his demands for a job and a residency permit were rejected and because he might become a convicted felon. I'm not a lawyer, but it is very possible that under those circumstances an extradition is possible and completely legal as long as you're not using a political reason. Now for the question you've been dodging : why do you think that a full team of top-notch lawyers and several world-renowned celebrities like Ken Loach are fighting for? Do you really think that it's... so that Assange can avoid that 1000€ bill? Is he that powerful? :p I have absolutely no idea. I don't like the question though as it is based on a false premise. I kinda answered this already though when I said that neither you nor I, or anyone else for that matter, knows what the eventual charges will be. This because the whole case against him is not presented yet as the process of justice is put on ice until he appears in Sweden. For all we know he might be facing higher fines than that or even prison depending what he is sentenced for. It would be pretty far-fetched to think that it will go beyond that, given that the press has had access to pretty much most of the story. You're simply assuming that there's a dangerous hidden secret that could turn this very simple affair into something much bigger.
You can't know this. The only thing you can know is that there is a chance that the court finds that he has abused the women sexually by having sex with them against their will - rape in other words.
Even if you find this scenario unlikely it it conceivable that he will be sentenced to prison in this case.
But more importantly, you're assuming that the intellectuals that surround and support Assange are all idiots he somehow hypnotized into defending him from the glorious Swedish justice.
No I don't. You should know this already since you were the one putting words in my mouth.
The only thing I said was that I have absolutely no idea.
It is a huge circus and I don't know what to make of it.
|
On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument..
Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law.
|
On August 17 2012 09:02 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:53 one-one-one wrote:On August 17 2012 08:34 Kukaracha wrote:On August 17 2012 08:18 one-one-one wrote:
Sweden is likely on of the safer countries for JA, that was why he sought a residence permit here in the first place.
Funny how his supporters always dodges this fact.
It was safe for Wikileaks, but here what matters are extradition conventions, which are different in every country. Not only that, but Assange's status has changed since then, because his demands for a job and a residency permit were rejected and because he might become a convicted felon. I'm not a lawyer, but it is very possible that under those circumstances an extradition is possible and completely legal as long as you're not using a political reason. Now for the question you've been dodging : why do you think that a full team of top-notch lawyers and several world-renowned celebrities like Ken Loach are fighting for? Do you really think that it's... so that Assange can avoid that 1000€ bill? Is he that powerful? :p I have absolutely no idea. I don't like the question though as it is based on a false premise. I kinda answered this already though when I said that neither you nor I, or anyone else for that matter, knows what the eventual charges will be. This because the whole case against him is not presented yet as the process of justice is put on ice until he appears in Sweden. For all we know he might be facing higher fines than that or even prison depending what he is sentenced for. It would be pretty far-fetched to think that it will go beyond that, given that the press has had access to pretty much most of the story. You're simply assuming that there's a dangerous hidden secret that could turn this very simple affair into something much bigger. But more importantly, you're assuming that the intellectuals that surround and support Assange are all idiots he somehow hypnotized into defending him from the glorious Swedish justice. Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:59 Euronyme wrote:
Sorry? I'm pretty sure the reason there were charges was because he started having sex with them as they were asleep. That's considered rape. Did I miss something? The first and main charges were in fact the absence of condoms in two sexual relations. They later added charges such as him using his body in an unpleasant way during sex, or poking one of them with his erection, or initiating sex while one was asleep, for unkown reasons (why you would suddenly decide, after three months, that that once time he joked around with his genitals is also a reason to sue him is beyond me). Note that both women have stated that these events took place in the context of a consensual sexual relationship - which was even actively seeked by the second woman, who presented herself as an admirer. So no, not rape, but sexual molestation maybe.
OK. All I heard was 'surprise sex' when they were asleep. I know this is not the case in many countries, but in Sweden a husband who has non consensual sex with his wife can be charged for rape. This is obviously also the case with a girl friend or whatever.
Having consensual sex without a condom is not illegal unless you know you've tested positive for a sexual disease and have been informed.
As the first thing that happened when the charges arouse was that he fled the country and asked for the trial to be held via web cam, he's not doing very well for himself to say the least.
Edit. The Swedish justice system is pretty shit. In the pirate bay case, two judges in a row were high up members in the "Anti piratebay association" (loosely translated) which is a fairly big anti pirating lobby organization in Sweden that the media industry has gathered in.
|
On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law.
now you've done it. i'm actually speechless.
|
On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law.
Here it very much counts as rape.
Your highly subjective opinion may be that it is a strange law, but it is still a law that you have to follow if you go to this country.
If you can't refrain from breaking a law you will have to face the consequences.
A very simple fact that Mr Assange tries to avoid by hiding at the embassy of Ecuador.
|
On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law.
wat.
I'm walking around at night.
I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout.
Then I stick my dick in her.
Probably rape, no?
Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act?
|
On August 17 2012 08:57 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2012 08:54 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:52 Deshkar wrote:
UK's original threat to enter the embassy, US interest in shutting JA up and Sweden's inability to promise not to extradite JA to US and their silly "no condom" charges really messed up all my views of these countries-_- Same here. You are absolutely clueless if you expect Sweden to give such a promise. On the previous pages there are multiple posts by Swedish people explaining why Sweden simply can not and will not make such a promise. It is very easy to sit in Singapore and Luxembourg and lose your respect for a country if you expect them to act against its own laws and systems.
But why all this overreaction in England and Sweden for such an unimportant (in respect of other international matters) even and person then ?
I mean threatening an ambassador is not a thing to take lightly and for me if you compare the allegation and the actions of both governments I just think it's disproportionate.
That's raising an alarm for me.
|
On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no?
apparently not in Canada... are there any other Canadians that can verify? I mean if we don't count sleep, then we would hardly count unconscious. Date rape? not anymore! now its just an unconscious cuddle..
|
On August 17 2012 09:23 Dundron2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? apparently not in Canada... are there any other Canadians that can verify? I mean if we don't count sleep, then we would hardly count unconscious. Date rape? not anymore! now its just an unconscious cuddle..
The only problem is that there are few better ways to wake up in the morning than to a lady friend...well, involving herself in your business, so to speak. Damn.
|
On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? Now, if I met a woman and we had spent most of the day/evening ravishing each other's bodies, and during the night my excess viagra caught up to me and the only solution was to start having sex with her whilst she sleeps, did she give consent for that sex act?
True, okay i didnt know that Assagne runs through swedish park and and put his dick in sleeping girls on a park bench. and your second case if the woman wakes up and says stop and you dont stop its a rape. Pretty simple. Its r eally not that complicated. The simple fact that she was asleep says nothing.
|
On August 17 2012 09:25 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:23 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:20 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:14 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:08 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 08:54 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
"You didn't wear a condom! RAPE! !!! !!! !!" No fault of the girl for making sure the cock going into her wasn't wrapped, what a bunch of bullshit... No wonder he is looking for asylum, plus the girl had no physical nor toxicology issuesand hung around him for months.
"lets blame the rape victim!" you know that doesn't sound like a very good argument.. Sex while woman is asleep is not rape. It's at the maximum coercion. And if your strange law consindered this as a rape, then its a strange law. wat. I'm walking around at night. I see a beautiful, sleeping dame on a park bench. A real knockout. Then I stick my dick in her. Probably rape, no? apparently not in Canada... are there any other Canadians that can verify? I mean if we don't count sleep, then we would hardly count unconscious. Date rape? not anymore! now its just an unconscious cuddle.. The only problem is that there are few better ways to wake up in the morning than to a lady friend...well, involving herself in your business, so to speak. Damn.
while that may be, it should be the receiving parties prerogative to determine whether this was appreciated, or sexual assault.
|
On August 17 2012 09:20 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:57 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 17 2012 08:54 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 08:52 Deshkar wrote:
UK's original threat to enter the embassy, US interest in shutting JA up and Sweden's inability to promise not to extradite JA to US and their silly "no condom" charges really messed up all my views of these countries-_- Same here. You are absolutely clueless if you expect Sweden to give such a promise. On the previous pages there are multiple posts by Swedish people explaining why Sweden simply can not and will not make such a promise. It is very easy to sit in Singapore and Luxembourg and lose your respect for a country if you expect them to act against its own laws and systems. But why all this overreaction in England and Sweden for such an unimportant (in respect of other international matters) even and person then ? I mean threatening an ambassador is not a thing to take lightly and for me if you compare the allegation and the actions of both governments I just think it's disproportionate. That's raising an alarm for me.
There is no overreaction. The whole thing would be out of this world if Assange had gone to Sweden 2 years ago.
Instead he took this route. That is the only overreaction in this case.
By the laws of the European union it is not a big thing to extradite a person for crimes committed in another European country. That is one of the reasons why the EU is a good thing.
It is not worse than a criminal being arrested in Arizona and then sent to California where the crimes were committed.
There is a flip side however. The way things are set up it is actually very important that a person arrested in England for crimes committed in Sweden is actually extradited there. It is very severe if this process doesn't work.
For all the Swedes and google-translators out there I have an illuminating article: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sveriges-slar-tillbaka-efter-ecuadors-kritik/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
