WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
Dude really? Your post is basically summarized into 'women can have sex with anyone and aren't forced to be house wives! It's wroong!'. Did you just time travel from the 15th century?
On September 27 2012 17:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 22 2012 06:39 FreddYCooL wrote: I open this thread and instantly I am bombarded with users talking about how Sweden is brainwashing people with statefeminism and feministic brainwash propaganda. What is going on here?
Some macho guys who like their women meek and submissive and in the kitchen and not allowed to make decisions about their own bodies or take someone to court if they were the victim of a crime... I think i prefer "feminist propaganda" to be honest.
I'm very feminist myself and the most anti-macho one can get, but I do believe certain things have gone too far in Sweden. It's not by doing some ridiculously repressive laws that can be abused by any hysterical woman who would want their partner to go to jail for rape (and that is what happened to Assange; he just was unlucky to have sex with someone clearly a bit disturbed), that you change people's mentality.
It always saddens me to see how deep into people's life / relationship / sexuality these kind of laws are going. I think that's a complete perversion of what feminism was about.
The laws aren't repressive. The laws are made to protect you when you're stumbling drunk from a party, falls asleep on the bus and wake up on the street with a hobo pumping in your ass. You're actively arguing that this is not rape,and that it's something that you do to your girlfriend.
As even noted in the unbiased and critical "justice4assange" site, the reports far outpace the convictions. IE there are a lot of reports, but not a lot of convictions. For instance you don't get anywhere without technical evidence or witnesses afaik. Assange has an arrest warrant. That's it. He's not going to be charged until he's in court, and the prosecution will likely fail. The prosecutors however don't want to drop it as they get mad rep for being up in one of the biggest media cases in the world.
That's my take on it. Personally I admire wikileaks for reporting a lot of the things they've done, but I think it's better off without Assange.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
-.- So what you're saying is that someone was already handed over illegally... but Assange should come over because whatever, it happened once what are the odds of it happening again! Especially since it was the CIA that pressured Sweden into the Egyptian scandal... I would think that after how the US has tortured hundreds of people in the past decade along with Bradley Manning that it's best not to take that tiny risk, even if it did happen again and the "minister responsible would likely have suffered from that" I doubt it would be nearly as much as Assange would.
I don't see how it's hard to think they're not real... Two women, one who chose to sleep in the same bed as him when she wasn't suppose to be there and was aweing over him via twitter messages and another (who the first person knew about and spoke to about) complain about rape coincidentally when wiki leaks hits hard with the Iraq files? Then the charge of rape turns to rape with regards to a condom... which has just been completely disproven...
I can't see how you think they're real, maybe enlighten us.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
-.- So what you're saying is that someone was already handed over illegally... but Assange should come over because whatever, it happened once what are the odds of it happening again! Especially since it was the CIA that pressured Sweden into the Egyptian scandal... I would think that after how the US has tortured hundreds of people in the past decade along with Bradley Manning that it's best not to take that tiny risk, even if it did happen again and the "minister responsible would likely have suffered from that" I doubt it would be nearly as much as Assange would.
I don't see how it's hard to think they're not real... Two women, one who chose to sleep in the same bed as him when she wasn't suppose to be there and was aweing over him via twitter messages and another (who the first person knew about and spoke to about) complain about rape coincidentally when wiki leaks hits hard with the Iraq files? Then the charge of rape turns to rape with regards to a condom... which has just been completely disproven...
I can't see how you think they're real, maybe enlighten us.
Someone was handed over, by one person, acting against the law. That happens in EVERY nation, so using it as an indicator that it happens all the time is just not right. More so, that incident was handling unknown persons, under the table style. With the whole world watching, you'd had to be an absolute idiot to think a Swedish court would handle that extradition sloppy (not ministers, because they aint even allowed to interfere, another illegal activity in that previous mentioned case). Not to mention US hasnt even asked for him, not from Sweden when he was there, and not from UK.
And things are proven in court, not by media, not by public opinions etc.
To think a prosecutor would back down, it would just make him look like the biggest pushover in history, and set an example of "media can change the prosecutors decisions". It is up to the prosecutor to decide if a criminal charge is to be done.
My take on it is that JA just doesnt want to face a rape charge, totally understandable. I wouldnt want to face that either, in any country. And a much more plausible theory than a complex extradition theory that involves one of the highest ranked nations in the world on non-corruption-lists to ignore its legislation when the entire world is watching.
Swedish justice *is* political as seen in recent Tomas Quick debacle. Judges and high officials *will* protect each other, even Supreme Court Justice Göran Lambertz will try to protect people that I consider corrupt.
Swedish police left red-faced: If right, the accusations show a judicial system far from the crime solving reputation Swedish police have gained thanks to TV series Wallander, featuring Sir Kenneth Branagh as Inspector Wallander
Supreme Court Justice Göran Lambertz has been slammed for taking a personal stance in the debate about alleged mismanagement of the case of convicted serial killer Thomas Quick, who has since been acquitted of several murders. “It damages the Supreme Court and the whole Swedish judicial system,” said head of the association Anne Ramberg to news agency TT.
EDIT: I might use to strong words, but still if you put blind trust to anyone, without doing a background check you are a fool. This includes the Swedish justice system as well.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
-.- So what you're saying is that someone was already handed over illegally... but Assange should come over because whatever, it happened once what are the odds of it happening again! Especially since it was the CIA that pressured Sweden into the Egyptian scandal... I would think that after how the US has tortured hundreds of people in the past decade along with Bradley Manning that it's best not to take that tiny risk, even if it did happen again and the "minister responsible would likely have suffered from that" I doubt it would be nearly as much as Assange would.
I don't see how it's hard to think they're not real... Two women, one who chose to sleep in the same bed as him when she wasn't suppose to be there and was aweing over him via twitter messages and another (who the first person knew about and spoke to about) complain about rape coincidentally when wiki leaks hits hard with the Iraq files? Then the charge of rape turns to rape with regards to a condom... which has just been completely disproven...
I can't see how you think they're real, maybe enlighten us.
The Egyptians were not extradited, their application for asylum was denied. The egyptian affair was a enormous scandal and should not have happened but do not confuse extradition and asylum. Extradition claims must be handled by the Swedish supreme court and in this case any extradition from Sweden must also be approved by the UK.
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
Dude really? Your post is basically summarized into 'women can have sex with anyone and aren't forced to be house wives! It's wroong!'. Did you just time travel from the 15th century?
On September 27 2012 17:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 23 2012 17:52 leveller wrote:
On August 22 2012 06:39 FreddYCooL wrote: I open this thread and instantly I am bombarded with users talking about how Sweden is brainwashing people with statefeminism and feministic brainwash propaganda. What is going on here?
Some macho guys who like their women meek and submissive and in the kitchen and not allowed to make decisions about their own bodies or take someone to court if they were the victim of a crime... I think i prefer "feminist propaganda" to be honest.
I'm very feminist myself and the most anti-macho one can get, but I do believe certain things have gone too far in Sweden. It's not by doing some ridiculously repressive laws that can be abused by any hysterical woman who would want their partner to go to jail for rape (and that is what happened to Assange; he just was unlucky to have sex with someone clearly a bit disturbed), that you change people's mentality.
It always saddens me to see how deep into people's life / relationship / sexuality these kind of laws are going. I think that's a complete perversion of what feminism was about.
The laws aren't repressive. The laws are made to protect you when you're stumbling drunk from a party, falls asleep on the bus and wake up on the street with a hobo pumping in your ass. You're actively arguing that this is not rape,and that it's something that you do to your girlfriend.
As even noted in the unbiased and critical "justice4assange" site, the reports far outpace the convictions. IE there are a lot of reports, but not a lot of convictions. For instance you don't get anywhere without technical evidence or witnesses afaik. Assange has an arrest warrant. That's it. He's not going to be charged until he's in court, and the prosecution will likely fail. The prosecutors however don't want to drop it as they get mad rep for being up in one of the biggest media cases in the world.
That's my take on it. Personally I admire wikileaks for reporting a lot of the things they've done, but I think it's better off without Assange.
Wait, what?
Are you fucking serious? Did you even read what I wrote? And you think I'll even answer you? Get real.
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Well this definitely can't be good and i doubt that he even had anything to do with the sexual molestation or rape claims they are just trying to pin him down for something.
If people think these charges are legit. Well then you're crazy. They will extradite him to the states ASAP HIS DNA ISN'T EVEN IN THE CONDOM. In the real world of regular people, this suit would have been thrown out. There is 0 evidence other than the lady that "claims" what happened. Despite the fact she has been found joking over it.
If they give assange to Sweden, the states will take him. And he will magically disappear.
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
Dude really? Your post is basically summarized into 'women can have sex with anyone and aren't forced to be house wives! It's wroong!'. Did you just time travel from the 15th century?
No, im just saying, countless females spend the best years of their lives living a bovinized life, going from one shallow pleasure to the next until they realize that there is a woman just as pretty, sexy and attractive that has made those years worth her while and has all of that, and a superior position in adult society, and it crushes them, and they realize living like they did for all these years has ruined their self esteem, created a ton of psychological problems, and shattered her sense of identity.
And theres an army of those people out there with power and influence on society, theres a research (i tryed looking for it but couldnt find it, when I see my professor ill try to get the link) that proves that 80% of woman tend to act as if their opinion was truth, do you have any idea how Bizarre that is?!
Obviously it doesnt apply 100% of the time, but considering the spectrum of society, its something worth pausing and thinking about it.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Sweden is statistically the most 'equal' country in the world, and we have more CEOs with the name "Göran" than female CEOs (or at least we did 2005 or so when I was in school). Men in every country earn more than women. Our politicians and rulers are mainly men. The list goes on. In what way is our society dominated by women?
On topic of Assange's accusations of the Swedish society where men are stripped of all rights and thrown into prison as soon as someone points a finger, and that we would extradite him immediately: Why do you think he went here? Why do you think that the running wikileaks servers are placed in Sweden? Why do you think his criticisms against society at large first came after he was accused of rape, whilst before that he was saying it was great. If he's indeed innocent, he's trying damn hard to hide it.
Edit. Assange is completely spineless. His 'employee' Bradley Manning (the person actually leaking information, and not just setting up a site and contacting media) got caught and has ruthlessly been tortured by the Americans since may 2010 and there are still no official charges against him afaik. Assange hasn't sent any of his money to get Manning any lawyers (which is going to be needed, as the US rule of law is based upon capital and not justice), but keeps at least 3 British lawyers and one Swedish for himself for a rape case that he tries everything to let the focus slip away from. I don't understand why he deserves any respect, or why people even bother defending him.
Edit2. Why aren't Americans protesting the fact that the war criminals from the Iraq wars get less punishment than the person discovering it? Give the man a medal, and give the serial killers in the US army to an independent Iraqi court where they can be hanged like Saddam, because I bet you that the illegal, UN condemned occupation with Hitler-Poland annexation tones to it has caused a lot more suffering than Saddam ever did.
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 28 2012 01:06 D10 wrote: Fact is, woman have lived thousands of years in society without ever coming close to this power and influence, now that they have it, most dont know what to do with it.
On one side of the coin, you have people making laws assuming woman are some precious little crystal being manipulated by man, that cant defend herself enough to make any sort of interaction with a man without being in a disadvantage.
On the other side, you see them becoming more and more influential in all realms of life, and using their new found sexual influence to be on top of her social circle, dressing as sexy as possible, having very active sex lives and etc...
So basically, they want it all, and we man pay for it.
I would certainly not agree with that.
We are living in super male-dominated societies.
Please explain why you think we live in "super male-dominated societies" (and by "we" I'm assuming you're referring to first-world nations).
On September 28 2012 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: And if someone has a "sexual power", it's certainly men.
Men on average have very little sexual power. There's a reason why men are generally required to expend most of the effort and financial investment in dating. Nothing says that someone has the upper hand quite like the expectation that others are supposed to spend money on them and do most of the work. Perhaps the a minority of men at the top do have sexual power over the average woman, but the rest do not.
Why don't you just look around you and make interesting obesrvation about the ratio man / women in high responsability jobs, the difference of salary, etc etc etc
And you probably aren't looking around if you don't notice how women are treated in the street and basically everywhere by horny losers.
etc etc etc etc
Thinking that we are in a female dominnated society today is just puzzling. It's like saying black people have the power in America (Obama doesn't change anything)
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
That a democracy should tolerate ennemies of its government? Isn't it what you call freedom of thought and freedom of speech? Unless there is a law in the US saying that being against US leadership in the world is a crime, but I've never heard of it and that would make people who keep claiming that hate videos against whole religions spreading ignorance hatred and prejudices are OK because of FoS, cynical hypocrites.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
That a democracy should tolerate ennemies of its government? Isn't it what you call freedom of thought and freedom of speech? Unless there is a law in the US saying that being against US leadership in the world is a crime, but I've never heard of it and that would make people who keep claiming that hate videos against whole religions spreading ignorance hatred and prejudices are OK because of FoS, cynical hypocrites.
What has Julian Assange been charged with, at this point? By the US government that is.
There are millions of people, living in America, that are publicly against its government. Point me to one person that went to prison for expressing his dislike of the US government.
Point me to one person that went to prison for expressing that the US was run by lizard people.
Bradley maning is in prison because, as a soldier, he leaked classified information. Call me crazy, but a government isn't really crossing any lines when it court martials soldiers that leak classified information.
I disagree with the claim that it endangered any lives, I don't think it was all that bad, but let's be real, you can't have soldiers dumping classified information at a whim.
Julian Assange isn't guilty of anything, which is why the US hasn't charged him with anything. Journalists can publish information, same as the Pentagon papers.
What happend to that guy, I wonder. Releasing documents far more damaging than any of the wikileaks (which really proved that the US basically does what it says). Ooh yeah, he won pulitzers.
The US government doesn't want Assange, they don't give a shit about him. They could have had him a billion times already, they just don't care.
He is fighting the big bad evil of the world, but the US government simply doesn't care about him.
Besides, what would they do with him if they did get him? You have to be an absolute idiot to try and put Assange on trial for the wikileaks. This business in Sweden is simple, its because he actually did break the law.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
I assume the main point you want to make with this is that "sweden refuses to give promises about not giving him over"?
Well, that because that the swedish goverment CANT give such a promise, not a legally binding one at the very least, since that is the matter for the court, something the goverment cant touch. Ministers is prohibited in Sweden to involved themselves directly in specific cases (called ministerstyre). And the court cant give an answer unless the question is officially asked.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, speaking via a choppy video feed from his virtual house arrest in London, lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday for supporting freedom of speech in the Middle East while simultaneously "persecuting" his organization for leaking diplomatic cables.
To be completely honest Assange has lost his "Row row Fight the Powah!" charm. Now he just looks like a hypocrit that wants to avoid criminal charges and the same open responsibility that he preaches about.
Except the charges against him are just a way to get him in custody so they can punish him for Wikileaks... People actually think these charges are real?
Yes, I actually have a hard time people think they aint real. Swedens own system wouldn't allow for him to be turned over to the US, since he'd risk stuff we dont like (torture, death penalty), and the european arrest order system would require UK to accept Sweden giving him to US, so if UK already accepted that, there wouldn't realy be a need to take him in a detour in Sweden.
And to preempt any mentioning of the egypts that were extradited, that WAS done illegally, and the minister responsible would likely have suffered from that, if she hadnt been killed by a random crazy person.
He is an enemy of the US government, a self-proclaimed enemy and proud to be one. He's said multiple times that his ultimate goal is to remove the US government from its position on the world stage. So, what's the problem?
You do realize that the US government is using tax payer money to do these actions right? What is the problem with knowing what our tax dollars are really funding?
What is he doing that is so illegal? The New York Times have published the same exact shit Wikileaks has done in the past - you don't see any of them in jail or being charged with a crime. Julian Assange is a messenger - he's not hacking into the Pentagon and stealing information.
There are obviously things that the US gov't does not want its citizens to know if they are taking this type of action against it.
EPT
