EPTPoliticians can't interfere in court cases.
The naivety here is amusing but a little sad. Yeah that NEVER happens. Also politicians never lie, judges are never corrupt and the police is the bastion of goodness and purity.
WikiLeaks founder arrested in U.K. - Page 67
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
redviper
Pakistan2333 Posts
The naivety here is amusing but a little sad. Yeah that NEVER happens. Also politicians never lie, judges are never corrupt and the police is the bastion of goodness and purity. | ||
|
jellyjello
Korea (South)664 Posts
On August 18 2012 10:58 Mallard86 wrote: The conspiracy theories are silly and people are silly to believe that Assange would ever actually be extradited to the US. The disturbing part of this story is the continued behavior of the US government in general with regards to whistle blowers and information leakers. The US should be operating under transparency to its people and not secrecy. The notion of secrecy due to national security has been abused and bastardized from what it should be. There are things that should remain secret but that is only a tiny portion of what is claimed under protected secrets nowadays. Just because something is classified as secret or top secret, it doesn't mean there is no transparency or accountability. The different level of classification is there for a reason. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On August 18 2012 10:58 Mallard86 wrote: The conspiracy theories are silly and people are silly to believe that Assange would ever actually be extradited to the US. The disturbing part of this story is the continued behavior of the US government in general with regards to whistle blowers and information leakers. The US should be operating under transparency to its people and not secrecy. The notion of secrecy due to national security has been abused and bastardized from what it should be. There are things that should remain secret but that is only a tiny portion of what is claimed under protected secrets nowadays. The problem with wikileaks is that it is mainly made up of that "tiny portion". It's practically just high-tech gossip news. It exposed some mean things the US did in places like Iraq/Afghan/gitmo (wow, shocking!) and some other stuff in the world that was worth knowing but the VAST majority of it is just the totally needless exposing of internal communications of diplomats and world leaders. If people think it's whistle blowing to give out every candid conversation and bit of information from people that run countries then I don't think they really understand or appreciate what real whistle blowing is. Most of the time Wikileaks is whistle blowing just to hear the sound. Instead of a hero for transparency and truth JA almost just comes off as a petty criminal, which is a shame. There's a reason why most countries don't like the guy. It's certainly not just the US. Notice his own nation doesn't give a rats ass about him? | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
On August 18 2012 08:32 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Interesting, the talk goes from Assange to Slave Labour... Classic Team Liquid page if you ask me, very very on topic and to the point (although I see the above poster was simply just correcting that there was slave labour). Let's get this train back on topic! Poll: Did the USA Set him up? Yes (42) No (15) 57 total votes Your vote: Did the USA Set him up? Piga and dräng are female and male servants. They were typically employed by medium/large scale farmers. I'm not sure if they got paid, probably not much if they did, but they got free food and shelter and they were able to quit if they wanted to. They were not slaves. Slaves doesn't have rights. Anyway, whether Assange is guilty or not is not a question that I feel I could even attempt to answer, and I'm surprised that so many ppl seems to think otherwise. The reason why he should be sent to Sweden is so that we can get that question answered. Noone here have enough evidence to make that judgement. On August 18 2012 08:50 sekritzzz wrote: The british court system is likely the least influenced by politics (which is probably the main reason assange chose the UK rather than other places despite their close alliance with the US). As several people have said, the British can't and won't extradite him to the USA due to the massive legal complication, but Sweden obviously doesn't considering they've sent several people abroad for torture/etc. So how can Julian Assange trust the Swedish authorities if they've done it in the past? especially considering how badly the USA wants him in comparison to other people. Can you please confirm the source that says that USA badly wants to get a hold on Assange? I just can't believe this. You guys are supposed to be the followers of wikileaks, and yet when your hero is involved you seem to have forgotten what wikileaks is all about, to spread facts, total, uncensored and unbiased facts. From reading all of you guys's ramblings here, I wonder if you actually believe in what the site stands for, or if you just enjoy looking up other ppl's dirt. You have this idea that everybody is corrupt, and yet Mr Assange seems to be the exception. Why? This doesn't seem like truth-seeking to me, more like a personality cult. If you look at the facts, it's obvious that he should be sent to Sweden. Let's say that Assange instead would have been a random australian, and that he was being accused for murder? Then noone would question that UK sent him over. How come this case is different? This case is not as severe, but the law operates the same way. You can't circumvent the law because of some perceived threat. He entered our soil, and is suspected to have broken the law, and you're expecting us to just forget about it, just because it makes the accused sleep better at night? I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. The EU law is right now forcing UK to make action. I'm sorry but the only grey area in this case is the question of how far the UK is willing to go to apprehend him, but there's no doubt under the current conditions that he will be sent to Sweden and he will stand trial. Assange's only chance is if he manages to escape somehow, but then he will not be able to travel inside EU anymore, or if he's lucky the case will be dropped, and he will be free to go. That's most likely what he's hoping for, but I think it can be a long wait. | ||
|
Breavman
Sweden598 Posts
On August 18 2012 08:57 redviper wrote: Did anyone end up in jail from this "huge deal" afterwards? I am honestly curious. Did anyone go to prison? Pay a fine? It became a huge story when it broke, was everywhere, and is still brought up frequently. Parliamentary and juridical control functions have criticized the decision sharply. At least one of the victims has been paid a fairly large compensation (of course not compared to what he went trhough). Like I wrote the foreign minister, who was personally responsible, was murdered in an unrelated event before the story broke. I don't know if she would have been forced to resign, she was very popular so it's hard to tell. | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. | ||
|
plogamer
Canada3132 Posts
But he should be guaranteed that he will not be extradited to the US. That's his greatest fucking defense right there. Take that away, because extradition to the US has nothing to do with the rape case, and justice for the women in Sweden can proceed without any political influence (atleast obvious ones like the fear of being extradited to the States). I don't care for the excuses made by people about not guaranteeing extradition. It is not in the interest of justice to have two cases mixed up. No sane judge would allow such a thing in an unbiased court of law. 1) Bring him to Sweden for the rape charges, try him, imprison him if found guilty. 2) Then let him go to the Ecuadorian embassy or whatever country wants him (after serving sentence, if guilty). 3) Then let him deal with extradition to the US. Promise that much, at least, o spineless Swedish government. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote: so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom. i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. | ||
|
Mallard86
186 Posts
On August 18 2012 11:18 jellyjello wrote: Just because something is classified as secret or top secret, it doesn't mean there is no transparency or accountability. The different level of classification is there for a reason. Thats not really true. There are many instances where the US government refuses to release information based on claims of national security or other thin claims. For instance, the TSA is heavily scrutinized and receives many requests for information which they deny on grounds of security. The only information deserving of classification are things like battle plans, current and future deployments, names of persons on certain operations and specific plans and specs on some equipment. We end with much more information covered under the umbrella of secrecy undoubtedly to cover incompetence, irresponsible spending and misbehavior. | ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On Aug 18 2012 14:49 wrote: I don't care for the excuses made by people about not guaranteeing extradition. Those weren't excuses, but facts. Ask a Swedish lawyer if you want. On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote: It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. We don't even have a jury in our courts over here ... What I'm saying is that both of you should read this again. | ||
|
Groog
127 Posts
On August 18 2012 10:53 Euronyme wrote: What in the.... That's a female / male farm workers. They were always paid in some way and were always free to leave whenever. I don't even... Did you actually go to school? I'm seriously curious. Do you know what a slave is? Did you sleep in school? http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svensk_slavhandel Of course we, just like any other western country had slaves (How do you think the Vikings built their ships?). To think otherwise is preposterous. | ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/iZ3DL.jpg) | ||
|
leveller
Sweden1840 Posts
On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote: It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On August 18 2012 19:01 iHirO wrote: Haha. Very funny  Here is my inner artist's impression of the level of argumentation in this thread: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ODuSL.jpg) | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote: Yes and there are millions of cases where women got sexually mistreated or raped and who didn't dare to go to the police, or who did and got no case, or who got a case and had the court rule against her because she was dressed provocatively... Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. On August 18 2012 19:49 leveller wrote: Men who think women make up rape charges all the time and that they are always blowing it out of proportion and who are always lying... would be funny if a guy raped you right and all the justice you got was to be called a slut? It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On August 18 2012 17:59 Groog wrote: Did you sleep in school? http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svensk_slavhandel Of course we, just like any other western country had slaves (How do you think the Vikings built their ships?). To think otherwise is preposterous. That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard. The first post argued that Sweden is built on the shoulders of slaves. The second one argues that people working at farms (dräng /piga) were slaves, and now you come with the viking era... awesome. It's been illegal since 1335. That should be a long enough time ago to considered irrelevant for contemporary politics, which was what the discussion was originally about. On August 18 2012 14:05 LaNague wrote: so uhm, how does it go in sweden when a woman tells the police that someone slept with her without a condom. i mean, you cant exactly prove it in any way, unlike real rape. I'd be surprised if he actually got convicted. I'm not sure how it works, but as there are two girls who've filed reports, that's the most important factor really. If there was just one girl, he would've still had to go to court, but there's no way he'd be found guilty of anything really. To the people saying he should get a guarantee not to be sent to the US. The only reason this works in Ecuador is because their country is one of the most corrupt in the world. The reason why it doesn't work in Sweden is because anyone interfering with the justice system is committing a felony. The decision would have to go through a court that decides whether the US claim (which there is currently none) is just, and whether he'd be in danger of facing execution or torture. The same kind of trial that was in England that is. | ||
KwarK
United States44389 Posts
On August 18 2012 14:55 sunprince wrote: It goes the way that it does in most Western countries: In any he-said, she-said situation, the man is assumed guilty until prove innocent. Female "victims" of sex crimes are extremely compelling to the average jury, and there are a multitude of cases where men have been convicted of sex crimes on verbal testimony alone. There's a reason why the Innocence Project's overturned convictions are primarily composed of men who were unjustly found guilty of rape. This simply isn't true. 6.5 per cent of all reported rapists are convicted. An estimated that 95 per cent of rapes aren’t even reported. http://www.nus.org.uk/en/campaigns/womens/britain-has-worst-rape-conviction-rate-/ The conviction rate in cases of rape is appalling. Most cases get dropped out of lack of evidence before reaching trial when it's just her testimony. Those that make it that far don't win. | ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On August 18 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote: Citation? This is one of those classic feminist myths which was substantiated only by biased evidence relying on expansive definitions of rape. It's like that "1 in 4 women is raped" factoid thrown around by the media. It's not common, but there is significant evidence which suggests that they are substantially more common (8%) than false criminal accusations in general (2%). This makes sense considering that false accusers are virtually never punished, thanks to feminist lobbying under the bullshit premise that "it would make women afraid to come forward" (of course, this logic is not applied to any other crimes). As for your "funny example", there's your rape culture right there: male-on-male rape is considered "funny" (while female-on-male rape is heinous). And the term used there would be "gay" rather than "slut". The statistics you link to is US statistics. How does that apply to Sweden? Funny how you Americans just assume that all things probably work in ways very similar to in the US. One of you guys was even talking about the problem with the jury in rape trials. We don't even have fucking juries in our court as our legal system is very different from Common Law. Then the very same page you link to contains the following paragraph: "FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. The average rate of unfounded reports for Index crimes is 2%.[2] However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation.[3] Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner's says that: This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[4]" So you say that 8% of the allegations are false and refer to a source that explicitly states that 8% of allegations are _unfounded_ which it also explains is not the same thing as false. It also cites a forensic examiner saying that the statistics is "almost meaningless". I'm sorry , but LOL. | ||
| ||
