|
Member
(05-30-2012, 08:36 AM)
|
Julian Assange (Wikileaks) loses Supreme Court appeal, will be extradited to Sweden
#1
Quote:
|
|
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 08:56 AM)
|
#7
You have to seriously be in denial to not realize this has been a smear campaign against Assange from the start (not that he's a very good person to begin with and practically gave them the ammo). |
|
Banned
(05-30-2012, 09:04 AM)
|
#10
|
|
Junior Member
(05-30-2012, 09:07 AM)
|
#13
So it's merely a coincidence that these allegations pop up out of nowhere when Assange and Wikileaks starts striking a nerve with the US government?
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 09:28 AM)
|
#15
The American overlords have spoken. Little worker ant countries follow. Unless you buy the conspiracy that British bankers and the Royal bloodline run the US, in which case the British overlords have spoken.
|
|
I have a foreskin yet I do not have AIDS
(05-30-2012, 09:30 AM)
|
#16
also lol at 'worker ant countries' |
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 09:31 AM)
|
#17
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 09:33 AM)
|
#18
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 09:38 AM)
|
#20
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 09:46 AM)
|
#21
Quote:
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 09:49 AM)
|
#23
It's part of the human bill of right to flee the country when you're accused of rape! |
|
Junior Member
(05-30-2012, 09:54 AM)
|
#25
Uh what? He didn't flee Sweden at all. He was placed under house arrest in England for over a year and a half. He hasn't been charged for anything, he's simply under investigation by the Swedish authorities. And he and his lawyers fear that by being extradited to Sweden he could be easily extradited over the the US to face their secret court.
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 09:58 AM)
|
#29
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 10:12 AM)
|
#32
Actually, if I were Assange I'd feel safer in Sweden than in the UK (from the extradited-to-the-US POV). Anyways, I'm not up to date on the matter, but I'd guess that the US would like to charge Assange for stuff that could get him the death penalty? If so, he can't be extradited from the UK or Sweden anyway. |
|
aka Meus Renaissance
(05-30-2012, 10:17 AM)
|
Posted this a while back
#33
Though the English-speaking world had lost interest in the details of the accusations against him, furious debate had continued in the country where Assange would be questioned and possibly charged. Much of this was due to the argument Assange's legal team had mounted against extradition - that Sweden's politically appointed judges, in-camera sex crime trials and freewheeling prosecutors were at variance with EU standards, and neither process nor eventual trial was fair.Sweden has this law whereby even consensual sex, without a condom, is classed as rape
Last edited by Jason Raize '75 - '04; 05-30-2012 at 10:21 AM.
|
|
Banned
(05-30-2012, 10:22 AM)
|
#34
Quote:
justaccordingtokeikaku.jpg |
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 10:26 AM)
|
#35
Originally Posted by Jason Raize '75 - '04:
Also, coercion doesn't necessarily have to be violent. |
|
#1 fly (for a white guy) fisher
(05-30-2012, 10:53 AM)
|
#37
why would sweden send assange to US? he "raped" in sweden. the only thing that US has in this case is that they where probably the planner of this so called "Rape"
if anything we should send him back to Australia from where he comes from.
Last edited by robertsan21; 05-30-2012 at 10:57 AM.
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 11:05 AM)
|
#38
They became irrelevant basically, they have become little more than yet another tabloid. After the way Assange entrapped Manning for the USA diplomatic cable leak but then abandoned him it would be lunacy for anyone to release information on Wikileaks. |
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 11:05 AM)
|
#39
Didn't one of the women allege that he had sex with her while she was asleep? Has he ever actually denied that? And just sayin', but it's perfectly reasonable to support Wikileaks without necessarily supporting Assange. |
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 11:07 AM)
|
#40
I don't know what is worse: people who find conspiracy in everything or people who always dismiss them like they have firsthand knowledge.
It's hard not to see an element of skulduggery in the case. It doesn't necessarily mean it is absolutely true, but how people can take everything at face value and not question anything is beyond me. |
|
Short bus special
(05-30-2012, 11:20 AM)
|
#41
Our government really isn't. They are so wanting to be noticed by the "big players" in the world, that they will gladly drop their pants and bend over for any little wish.
Was the same in World War 2. :P
If a woman doesn't agree with going without a condom, and the guy does it anyway against her wishes, then it's classed as a type of rape.
Last edited by KAOz; 05-30-2012 at 11:26 AM.
|
|
Banned
(05-30-2012, 11:33 AM)
|
#45
The stuff around Ardin's behaviour and the vendetta of the prosecutor would make any conviction unsafe if this were in the UK -- but Sweden isn't the UK, and I have to doubt that the fervor against him would be so strong were he not the proprietor of Wikileaks. Even if he's not later extradited to the US, his life will be in tatters if convicted - essentially, enough damage will be done, revenge done.
I hope he gets a fair trial. |
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 12:45 PM)
|
#47
Isn't that pretty much the same? I mean, how would you possibly prove that?
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 12:57 PM)
|
#48
If she wants him to use a condom, but he doesn't want to and force or coerce her into having sex with her. Then this is "normal" rape. If she wants him to use a condom, but he doesn't want to, says "Come on" and she agrees. Still later change her mind, then it is also rape?
Last edited by Metal B; 05-30-2012 at 01:00 PM.
|
|
Member
(05-30-2012, 12:58 PM)
|
#49
Not that I can know what the actual truth is, I can only speculate, but come on man, that is a total fallacy. As if humans really were totally incapable of keeping secrets. |