|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
I mean, I don't know what's going on between the US and UK governments, but isn't that kinda the point? Anyone in this thread who says they know what the motivations of all of the players here are is fucking making it up. Why don't we talk about things that are actually happening instead of flinging around wild conspiracy theories? Makes me really sad to see some people whom I would probably agree with on most issues fall straight into the same irrational conspiracy-mongering that plagues the American far right and the far right in other countries.
When people say things like this:
Ecuador and Uzbekistan being forced to take up the West's discarded mantle as defenders of international diplomatic standards
I mean for the love of god, the government of Uzbekistan is one of the worst serial abusers of human rights in the world, and you're prepared to put them on a pedestal over Sweden??? You think they hold the moral high ground? Are you serious?
Get your head out of a hole and try to look at the world objectively. Comment on things that happen, not wild innuendo, superstition, and generalizations.
|
On August 17 2012 13:08 tree.hugger wrote:I mean, I don't know what's going on between the US and UK governments, but isn't that kinda the point? Anyone in this thread who says they know what the motivations of all of the players here are is fucking making it up. Why don't we talk about things that are actually happening instead of flinging around wild conspiracy theories? Makes me really sad to see some people whom I would probably agree with on most issues fall straight into the same irrational conspiracy-mongering that plagues the American far right and the far right in other countries. When people say things like this: Show nested quote +Ecuador and Uzbekistan being forced to take up the West's discarded mantle as defenders of international diplomatic standards I mean for the love of god, the government of Uzbekistan is one of the worst serial abusers of human rights in the world, and you're prepared to put them on a pedestal over Sweden??? You think they hold the moral high ground? Are you serious? Get your head out of a hole and try to look at the world objectively. Comment on things that happen, not wild innuendo, superstition, and generalizations.
In all fairness the part about the Uzbekistan guy is a bit confusing. Apparently he's actually British but worked in Uzbekistan as an ambassador and heavily criticised Britain for cooperating with Uzbkekistan as they were torturing their own citizens.
Still, I don't see why he'd be afraid to go back to Sweden. Even his own lawyer says that there's no reason to worry that he'd be deported to the US. It's just not within the realm of possibilities.
|
So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
|
On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote:
So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
It is virtually impossible for Sweden to hand him over to the US. It would go against our own laws and against EU conventions. That's not going to happen. It's far more likely that the UK would hand him over there in that case.
The ambassador of Ecuador is harboring a fugitive, meaning he could be judged persona non grata (if I remember my social studies correctly) and be deported, while Assange could then be taken into custody. Not sure if there's another way in without basically declaring war, is there? I highly doubt that they would go in 'by force' as the former Uzbeki ambassador says.
He's wanted in Sweden for allegedly having raped two women and probably obstruction of justice to say the least. After he fled the country, there's been a European arrest warrant on JA.
Just because wikileaks is a good thing doesn't mean Assange isn't a rapist who's trying to avoid paying for his crimes. Just saying.
After the first talk about the alleged rape, he was talking about digging up dirt on the country of Sweden as retribution and that ministers would have to go and such. I don't think this ever happened really, but personally I would welcome some uncomfortable truths with open arms, don't get me wrong, but it's a really weird way to put it forward I think.
Judging from that he seems like a fairly childish person. It would also kind of dampen the quality of wikileaks, as it makes it his personal tool of vengeance, rather than 'the public deserves information' or whatever the original motto was.
That's my personal conspiracy theory. I think he might very well be guilty to the rapes.
|
On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote:
So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on?
I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation.
|
On August 17 2012 14:00 Bayyne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote:
So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on? I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation.
Here's a transparency index.
http://www.transparency.org/country#ECU
http://www.transparency.org/country#SWE
http://www.transparency.org/country#GBR_DataResearch
|
On August 17 2012 14:10 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 14:00 Bayyne wrote:On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote:
So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on? I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation. Here's a transparency index. http://www.transparency.org/country#ECUhttp://www.transparency.org/country#SWEhttp://www.transparency.org/country#GBR_DataResearch
Thats so intresting, thanks for the link
|
On August 17 2012 09:42 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz 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? 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. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. Violence and drugs are means to an end of either ignoring or not being granted consent, no? Thus, any situation in which a woman is unable or incapable of giving consent, yet has sexual acts performed on her, is rape.
I usually rather enjoy watching this thread from the sidelines, but I have to hop in for a moment because the above statement is utter bullshit.
If I consensually agree with a woman that she wants to be tied up and gagged before we "perform sexual acts" I'm not raping her despite her being completely incapable of giving consent during the act.
The fine line here is about what was agreed beforehand and what was actually performed. I specifically remember a case about a BDSM couple busy with a rape-play in a forest with a hunter moving in to "defend" the woman, threatening to shoot the guy.
The verdict on this one was pretty much that they should have placed some kind of sign or warning for possible 3rd persons witnessing the scene and everyone was right in some way. "Consensual assault" or "consensual rape" aren't assault or rape per definition.
A friend of mine once had a gf who wanted to be forcibly abducted and "raped" by him starting in some dark corner without her knowing more details besides a codeword to make sure it's him and not some random dude. When he approached her (including being masked, wearing gloves, full deal basically) a police car showed up behind him and arrested him on the spot. After the gf clarified the situation the police obviously let him go. =P
The nature of the matter makes anything involving "violent sex" that started out consentially for sure incredibly hard to judge. However, the consent during the act does, to some extent, not need to be given if it was given beforehand. If you e.g. agree upon having a safeword or code if she wants him to stop but she's shouting "No, stop it" instead she e.g. wouldn't be revoking her consent.
|
IMO Assange just want to drag this out so the governments are shown as a bunch of hyprocrites.
|
On August 17 2012 14:16 Elenar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 14:10 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 14:00 Bayyne wrote:On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote:
So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on? I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation. Here's a transparency index. http://www.transparency.org/country#ECUhttp://www.transparency.org/country#SWEhttp://www.transparency.org/country#GBR_DataResearch Thats so intresting, thanks for the link
Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison.
It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
|
I saw a bit of this on the news today, but one thing that confused me is that he is an Australian, in Britain with a arrest warrant from Sweden, but i saw a lot to do with Ecuador and it's embassy so what does this have to do with Ecuador?
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On August 17 2012 14:21 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 14:16 Elenar wrote:On August 17 2012 14:10 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 14:00 Bayyne wrote:On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote:
So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on? I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation. Here's a transparency index. http://www.transparency.org/country#ECUhttp://www.transparency.org/country#SWEhttp://www.transparency.org/country#GBR_DataResearch Thats so intresting, thanks for the link Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions.
That truly would be the ultimate irony -__- Doesnt even seem too unlikely.
|
On August 17 2012 14:30 Devise wrote:
I saw a bit of this on the news today, but one thing that confused me is that he is an Australian, in Britain with a arrest warrant from Sweden, but i saw a lot to do with Ecuador and it's embassy so what does this have to do with Ecuador?
Well Ecuador came in from nowhere, said that Sweden's justice system is shit and has Assange in their embassy in the UK.
The UK follows EU law and will deport him to Sweden whenever he leaves the building. That's about it.
|
On August 17 2012 14:30 Devise wrote:
I saw a bit of this on the news today, but one thing that confused me is that he is an Australian, in Britain with a arrest warrant from Sweden, but i saw a lot to do with Ecuador and it's embassy so what does this have to do with Ecuador?
They granted him political asylum.
|
On August 17 2012 14:59 sickle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 14:30 Devise wrote:
I saw a bit of this on the news today, but one thing that confused me is that he is an Australian, in Britain with a arrest warrant from Sweden, but i saw a lot to do with Ecuador and it's embassy so what does this have to do with Ecuador? They granted him political asylum.
He's not a political refugee.
|
|
|
On August 17 2012 15:01 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 14:59 sickle wrote:On August 17 2012 14:30 Devise wrote:
I saw a bit of this on the news today, but one thing that confused me is that he is an Australian, in Britain with a arrest warrant from Sweden, but i saw a lot to do with Ecuador and it's embassy so what does this have to do with Ecuador? They granted him political asylum. He's not a political refugee.
I'm just stating the facts, Ecuador did grant him political asylum that's why he's in their embassy.
Also, of course its all political. If you think its not, then I pity your ignorance and blindness.
|
To people saying the UK or Sweden would not break their national, EU or international law - many European countries have already done that to keep alleged terrorists in secret prisons simply because the US told them to. Many European countries have waged illegal wars, where hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died, simply because the US told them to.
Do you honestly believe Sweden would not extradite Assange simply because there were no legal grounds for it?
I don't know why it would be easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden, but one has to be blind to think that the whole reason why Sweden and the UK are trying to bring him to Sweden is not bogus. Two girls had sex with a man, they thoroughly enjoyed it, and then after a long while they complain, so Swedish court wants to question the man, but refuses to do that remotely. The UK threatens to bust an embassy to get hold of someone who might potentially get accused of a petty sex "crime".
Yeah, that seems likely...
|
On August 17 2012 14:17 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 09:42 Elegy wrote:On August 17 2012 09:39 Quarz wrote:On August 17 2012 09:31 Dundron2000 wrote:On August 17 2012 09:27 Quarz 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? 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. correct me if i'm wrong here, but you are saying that it is ok to have sex with someone in their sleep as long as they don't wake up. because if they wake up, it's rape. but if they don't it's not? If its okay, who knows. You would have to ask the other person. But even if its not okay its not suddenly a rape. A rape involves always violence or some sort of drugs. You could say it my definition and you have another than there nothing more to say. Violence and drugs are means to an end of either ignoring or not being granted consent, no? Thus, any situation in which a woman is unable or incapable of giving consent, yet has sexual acts performed on her, is rape. I usually rather enjoy watching this thread from the sidelines, but I have to hop in for a moment because the above statement is utter bullshit. If I consensually agree with a woman that she wants to be tied up and gagged before we "perform sexual acts" I'm not raping her despite her being completely incapable of giving consent during the act. The fine line here is about what was agreed beforehand and what was actually performed. I specifically remember a case about a BDSM couple busy with a rape-play in a forest with a hunter moving in to "defend" the woman, threatening to shoot the guy. The verdict on this one was pretty much that they should have placed some kind of sign or warning for possible 3rd persons witnessing the scene and everyone was right in some way. "Consensual assault" or "consensual rape" aren't assault or rape per definition. A friend of mine once had a gf who wanted to be forcibly abducted and "raped" by him starting in some dark corner without her knowing more details besides a codeword to make sure it's him and not some random dude. When he approached her (including being masked, wearing gloves, full deal basically) a police car showed up behind him and arrested him on the spot. After the gf clarified the situation the police obviously let him go. =P The nature of the matter makes anything involving "violent sex" that started out consentially for sure incredibly hard to judge. However, the consent during the act does, to some extent, not need to be given if it was given beforehand. If you e.g. agree upon having a safeword or code if she wants him to stop but she's shouting "No, stop it" instead she e.g. wouldn't be revoking her consent.
you jump into the discussion to argue semantics?
|
On August 17 2012 15:13 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 14:21 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 14:16 Elenar wrote:On August 17 2012 14:10 Euronyme wrote:On August 17 2012 14:00 Bayyne wrote:On August 17 2012 13:28 EtherealDeath wrote:
So, if in the end the unlikely happens and the UK does raid the Ecuadorean embassy to grab Assange, would it then be safe to say that in fact this entire process was actually likely a plan to get assange from UK to Sweden to US for whatever obfuscated reason of going along that path?
Since, looking at precedents of people who were not extracted in such a manner and given their crimes, as has been stated numerous times throughout this thread, it would seem extraordinarily unlikely for the UK to raid the Ecuadorean embassy if Assange were really wanted only for questioning by the Swedes. And if they did raid the embassy, the next question would be why, and US pressure seems possibly more likely than the UK wanting to be diligent friends of the Swedes. And if the US were pressuring the UK, then they are actually interested in Assange despite saying they are not... which makes one wonder if extradition from Sweden was the plan all along.
Of course if the embassy is not raided, I guess we have nothing solid to go on? I'm with you. There is, in my opinion, clearly something more than just a need to question him regarding a sexual assault allegation. Here's a transparency index. http://www.transparency.org/country#ECUhttp://www.transparency.org/country#SWEhttp://www.transparency.org/country#GBR_DataResearch Thats so intresting, thanks for the link Sorry if it's unclear, I just think it's strange trusting more in Ecuador than in the UK and Sweden, considering that Ecuador is very corrupt in comparison. It would seem to be a much higher risk of being deported from Ecuador than from Europe for instance, as it - once again - is against European conventions. Its not strange, since sweden has never refused extradition requests from the US. And dont you think its a little suspicious that our government refuses to promise that he wont be extradited to the US, after they talk to him in sweden again? Because thats the part which makes it pretty obvious whats going to happen after.
Sorry have there been a lot of these? The only one I'm aware of is with Anna Lindh, where she was murdered before it was known what happened. Have there been more than that one?
On August 17 2012 15:17 maybenexttime wrote:
To people saying the UK or Sweden would not break their national, EU or international law - many European countries have already done that to keep alleged terrorists in secret prisons simply because the US told them to. Many European countries have waged illegal wars, where hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died, simply because the US told them to.
Do you honestly believe Sweden would not extradite Assange simply because there were no legal grounds for it?
I don't know why it would be easier for the US to extradite him from Sweden, but one has to be blind to think that the whole reason why Sweden and the UK are trying to bring him to Sweden is not bogus. Two girls had sex with a man, they thoroughly enjoyed it, and then after a long while they complain, so Swedish court wants to question the man, but refuses to do that remotely. The UK threatens to bust an embassy to get hold of someone who might potentially get accused of a petty sex "crime".
Yeah, that seems likely...
Sorry, the girls didn't seem to enjoy it very much. It's usually not considered to be in good taste to patronise rape victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
