Moderated: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Korren]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

That is obviously why he does not want to go back to Sweden.

That's not obvious. He might be genuinely paranoid and see CIA plots everywhere, or he might genuinely think that he is innocent but be afraid that he would still be sentenced. He might even just be the kind of person who reacts badly to authority and always tries to push back, regardless.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Threads about contested court cases seem to attract these people who do not engage in serious discussion, but instead proclaim their faith in authority and in the guilt of the accused. Oddly you don't see the same kind of behaviour from people who doubt the verdict - there's some kind of asymmetrical pathology at work, where certain kinds of non-rational behaviour seem (here at least) to be more common to one mindset than another.

I don't pretend to know why this is, but it's interesting.

Nobody, and I mean Nobody fights extradition on charges like these with multi-million-dollar lawyer teams unless he knows he is guilty.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

I've slightly rearranged the order of your quotes to match my answer.
Ah, true - if that was the only part you want to refer to, I'm fine with that, and agree that it's completely true. Now the followup question is of course - why does your history stop and start there, and not include the part before that when Ny suggested dates and Hurtig couldn't reach JA, or the dates after this when Ny again suggested dates and Hurtig couldn't reach JA?

I listed a couple things demonstrating Ny was not as perfect as you insist, and you picked one thing not listed and said, 'see, nothing Hurtig says is true because this other thing wasn't'. Neither Hurtig nor Ny are perfect. That's the norm for humans, and even more so for humans in politically influenced situations.

There were efforts on JA's part to cooperate. He was interviewed for an hour by the first investigators. He did offer to come back to Sweden to be interviewed again. He's offered to be interviewed in the UK.

It's not your black and white issue: Ny only trying her best to fulfill her professional obligations while being thwarted by JA at every turn.

It is a complex issue where both sides have legitimate points. And Ny has acted, at times, like an ideologue, not strictly as a professional doing a job.

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Then I assume that you are perfectly happy that Sweden does use Lay Judges as part in the lower courts. You have even less information today, than they have in the decision process.

More argument from authority and that secret knowledge thing again. The judges know best, the rest of us, even with a case as opened to the public sphere as this, just couldn't possibly know enough to have a legitimate opinion.

I don't buy it. Feel free to believe it yourself, but continuing to repeat this argument from authority and secret knowledge could exist position is not going to make me change my point of view. I need evidence to change my point of view. I don't see any and the chances of secret evidence is looking more and more like what might exist is exculpatory, if anything.

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

...Yes, and as I have quoted the text before, the judges in England did not agree with him.

There is more than one legal argument to base such a decision on.

A) The prosecutor's hands are tied, Ny cannot accommodate JA.
B) The prosecutor could accomodate JA but doesn't have to, the burden is on JA if the prosecutor insists. The UK court, following legal technicalities, concurred.

B seems more likely to me.

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

That's your claim. You still haven't shown where that contradiction is. In one quote Ny says unless something new comes up, she's ready to charge after completing the interviews. In another quote she says that she cannot charge today. Those two statements are not contradictory.

If one was a politician maybe those two statements are not contradictory.

But let's look at it differently. If JA was returned to Sweden and refused to answer any questions of Ny's, refused to participate in an interview, would the prosecutor withhold charging JA indefinitely? Ny is using a legal contortion to talk out of both sides of her mouth.


And your position also begs the question, the evidence is extremely weak, so is basing a conviction on it wishful thinking on Ny's part or a shameful statement about a fair trial in Sweden?

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Yes, I do not dispute this, and as has been explained several times, the prosecution has no obligation to release anything to a suspect, only to a person that is charged.

Do you know what a non sequitur is? How does "no obligation to disclose" negate the fact the email exchanges in all probability favor JA's case?

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

And as I explained, I do not presume to be able to judge the value of this information.

Yes, because you prefer to defer to authority. In this case which is pretty straight forward, I don't have that problem.

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

See above.

Indeed. See my first 4 paragraphs.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And you claim I dodged?

You did. What is the source of your information? If there is more relevant information, would you have access to it? Are you able to correctly interpret the information you have available? The first one is the important question you keep dodging.

But yes, roll your eyes. Not only did I 'dodge' you in my sleep, I dodged you with my sleep. And work. And building a desk.

Quote:

It's a simple matter, tyr, you don't need citations or complex arguments. What is the evidence that you think says JA will be convicted in a court?

Funny, I thought you wanted it all. Why would a simple argument be better? Also, you know full well that the standard is not evidence that I think will convict JA in a court. Not every extradition hearing and investigation hearing is a full trial. They are to make sure legal procedure is being followed and bounds are not being overstepped. They are not to determine guilt. That's what we have full trials for.

My argument is that they at least have the reports of two women and the statements of Assange plus the expertise and training to interpret the relevant laws, legal arguments, and those statements. This is enough to continue proceedings and extradition in my view. That several courts have reviewed and accepted this (you've read some of their reasoning) further suggests that a trial would likely be warranted. I speculate that the authorities have additional evidence, knowledge or interpretation that makes them believe charges have a chance of being upheld. I defer to the experts on this because of the arguments put forth and their access to information that I have no reason to expect I'd have access to, or that others not involved in the case have access to.

I put more stock in the women's reports than you do, as I reject your reasons for dismissing them, to put it lightly.

Quote:

The appeal to authority fallacy does not rely on a person saying, "the courts are always right". You and Here_to_learn are both argung the authority of the court while not articulating any argument the court expertise supports.

Here_to_learn has indeed linked to the rulings, and you've even discussed some of them although you misinterpreted much. But for reviewing if the prosecution should continue and if extradition is warranted, well, what the court says is the legal course is the legal course until changed. Another court could tell if the lower court was in fact wrong in it's ruling. Even if Assange is acquitted, that doesn't mean the courts or prosecution overstepped.

Quote:

I think so. And I'd say Ny was behind it, not "the courts".

The courts agree with her use of power and arguments, so, it would be 'the courts'. Your evidence that it's all politically motivated seems to come from the same evidence that I use for speculating on additional 'evidence'. I don't doubt that if Assange weren't famous he would not have been pursued as much, but accused rapists not being pursued is a bad thing.

Quote:

That's an argument from authority fallacy no matter how you parse it.

That's how the law works you know! But it isn't a fallacy. I'm not saying that the courts must be right in everything about this case but in assessing extradition and continued investigation. They are more likely to be right however. (For those who don't know the limitations of the fallacy and are interested.)

Quote:

Your argument is not convincing.

It wasn't just that the women didn't object enough or soon enough. That's not my argument which is why it is a straw man.

No, not just, and I didn't say you said 'just'. But it is an objection you raised, and it is a bad argument. It's a standard argument leveled at rape accusers.

Quote:

It's that they did not object until they found out about each other. That's different than simply not coming forward right away.

Which is another objection you raised and hypothesized about, but one easily explained by other hypothesis. This is another bad reason to dismiss their reports.

Quote:

To say the courts ruled in a way I disagree with, they must be politically motivated or something' is another distortion of what I said. You ignore my point and make up your own, that is another straw man.

I didn't say you said that.

Quote:

That's why I'm trying to get you to articulate the wheat of your position instead of this chaff.

Let me say it again:

That there are 2 women with similar stories goes against JA.
That the women colluded nullifies the weight of their testimony.

It amounts to he said/she said and nothing else.

All there is here is a couple of women whose testimony can be ripped to shreds based on collusion and apparently incriminating emails between them.

Address my argument, not your distortion of it, please.

So how do you know exactly what he said and she (they) said? Someone does, and they keep agreeing with investigation and extradition.

What is your source of information? It's insufficient to make the assessments that you are.

[BenBurch]

Multiples of millions of dollars and thousands of people duped into donating to this little weasel. Such a waste.

I wonder what the sex crime laws in Ecuador are, anyway? Rapists NEVER commit only one or two rapes. I think it would be hilarious if he winds up in an Ecuadorian jail except for the fact that there would be another victim.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Nobody, and I mean Nobody fights extradition on charges like these with multi-million-dollar lawyer teams unless he knows he is guilty.

Wait, what?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Wait, what?

I think the fact that he is squirming away like the "le chat" in the "Pepe Le Pew" cartoons can only be because he knows he is guilty.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I think the fact that he is squirming away like the "le chat" in the "Pepe Le Pew" cartoons can only be because he knows he is guilty.

That's a slippery slope to try to stand on. Who else would do such a thing? A millionaire who, justified or not, doesn't believe he or she would get a fair trial. Or a paranoid delusional. Or someone with enough hubris to believe it's insulting to deal with states and petty laws.

There are many hypothesis, some likely some not, that explain that observation. It's rare that there is an 'only' explanation.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

That's a slippery slope to try to stand on. Who else would do such a thing? A millionaire who, justified or not, doesn't believe he or she would get a fair trial. Or a paranoid delusional. Or someone with enough hubris to believe it's insulting to deal with states and petty laws.

There are many hypothesis, some likely some not, that explain that observation. It's rare that there is an 'only' explanation.

I find the likelihood that he actually believes himself to be innocent as close to zero. He had a lawyer, made an appointment to be interviewed by the police, and next we knew he was in London. Here in the USA, had he run to another state like that, he would have been committing another crime; Unlawful Flight To Avoid Prosecution. There is a reason nations have extradition treaties, and that would be it. That he may ALSO be massively paranoid is almost beyond question. However, his mental derangement in turn does not speak well for the likelihood of his innocence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

These things have been gone over and over in the thread. At some point there is no more to be gained.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

You did. What is the source of your information? If there is more relevant information, would you have access to it? Are you able to correctly interpret the information you have available? The first one is the important question you keep dodging.

The evidence is in the netosphere, all of it, and then some.

The argument 'it's not all out there' goes back to that secret evidence, and you cannot even hypothesize what that unknown evidence could be short of an unlikely confession.

How many ways can you say, you couldn't possibly know and how many ways can I say, I think there is enough to safely base a conclusion on?

Originally Posted by tyr_13

.... They are not to determine guilt. That's what we have full trials for.

Argument from authority continues, ignoring the fact the court system is susceptible to political and ideological influence.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

.... My argument is that they at least have the reports of two women and the statements of Assange plus the expertise and training to interpret the relevant laws, legal arguments, and those statements. This is enough to continue proceedings and extradition in my view. [Argument from authority snipped, it's been addressed.]

I put more stock in the women's reports than you do, as I reject your reasons for dismissing them, to put it lightly.

My opinion leans toward the women exaggerating and revising their stories to fit the legal requirement needed to pursue JA who they were angry with.

But my argument does not rely on believing the women or JA. My argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

.... Even if Assange is acquitted, that doesn't mean the courts or prosecution overstepped.

Pursuing a case based on evidence that clearly isn't sufficient amounts to harassment.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

.... Your evidence that it's all politically motivated seems to come from the same evidence that I use for speculating on additional 'evidence'.

Again, you are addressing an argument which is not the one I am making.

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

My argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

...I don't doubt that if Assange weren't famous he would not have been pursued as much, but accused rapists not being pursued is a bad thing.

Which is interesting since no one in this thread has made any such claim. Saying we believe "accused rapists [don't need to be] pursued" is a straw man that you and others keep accusing everyone of who hasn't come to the same conclusion you have. It's argument by ad hom, and it's as much a fail as argument from authority.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

That's how the law works you know! But it isn't a fallacy. I'm not saying that the courts must be right in everything about this case but in assessing extradition and continued investigation.

One need not always believe in said authority to fallaciously use an argument from authority. The basis for your argument here, like the basis for HTL's argument, is the courts are right because there was a legal consensus. There was a legal consensus in the OJ trial. Clearly legal rulings are fallible.

The basis of the UK ruling did not include addressing the common sense of pursuing this case, only the technicalities of the extradition treaty.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

They are more likely to be right however. (For those who don't know the limitations of the fallacy and are interested.)

I like this paragraph from your Wiki link:

Quote:

Bias and prejudice is a human weakness found in experts as well as ordinary people. Wishful thinking is just one possibility when authorities who invested a great deal (time or money) in developing their expertise naturally want to be correct. Evidence that experts are biased weakens their arguments or rebuts the arguments altogether depending on circumstances. We cannot always be certain whether biased experts have weighed up and evaluated arguments carefully or are speaking from prejudice. Experts can be biased for any number of reasons, including who is paying them.[7] Doctors employed by the tobacco industry are not necessarily reliable, for example.[8][9]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

No, not just, and I didn't say you said 'just'. But it is an objection you raised, and it is a bad argument. It's a standard argument leveled at rape accusers.

"Soon enough" was not the key to my objection. "Not until learning about each other" was the key point. By their own words, the women didn't appear to object to the sex, they objected to finding out JA was doing more than one woman in the same time frame.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Which is another objection you raised and hypothesized about, but one easily explained by other hypothesis. This is another bad reason to dismiss their reports.

We are in the area of opinion and it is my opinion the evidence supports the hypothesis, they became angry with JA after the fact, not during the sex.



The rest of your post just rehashes the same stuff. How many ways can you say, you couldn't possibly know and how many ways can I say, I think there is enough to safely base a conclusion on?

[BenBurch]

Trying a rape case with the collected wisdom of the blogosphere is such a respectful way to deal with the victims!

Magic 8 ball next?

[Stacko]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Trying a rape case with the collected wisdom of the blogosphere is such a respectful way to deal with the victims!

Magic 8 ball next?

Signs point to yes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Believing there is never enough evidence in the public sphere to draw a conclusion because sometimes there is not enough evidence?

Magic 8 Ball says: "Try Again"

[BenBurch]

If you think that is enough to dismiss rape allegations, I am sad for you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If you think that is enough to dismiss rape allegations, I am sad for you.

If you think the testimony of 2 women, whose testimony can be ripped to shreds legitimately (they might have sought money, they colluded, they asked for an HIV test and that evolved into different charges only later) by the defense, is enough to convict a person, I am sad for you.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

These things have been gone over and over in the thread. At some point there is no more to be gained. The evidence is in the netosphere, all of it, and then some.

The argument 'it's not all out there' goes back to that secret evidence, and you cannot even hypothesize what that unknown evidence could be short of an unlikely confession.

How many ways can you say, you couldn't possibly know and how many ways can I say, I think there is enough to safely base a conclusion on?

No, just completely no. It's not 'all out there'. In this 'he said, they said', you don't even know what he said that might have incriminated him. Even the stuff that is out there gets interpreted different ways that don't necessarily support your conclusion.

I've repeatedly given examples of what sort of 'evidence' could be there, including alternate interpretations of evidence in the public sphere, wording examination of his and their statements, etc. You can stop saying that I haven't as I did in my very first statement speculating on additional 'evidence'.

Quote:

Argument from authority continues, ignoring the fact the court system is susceptible to political and ideological influence.

Explain how extradition hearings are different and use a different standards of and determine different things from criminal trials is an appeal to authority? Maybe if you say it enough it'll become true?

Quote:

My opinion leans toward the women exaggerating and revising their stories to fit the legal requirement needed to pursue JA who they were angry with.

But my argument does not rely on believing the women or JA. My argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

Irrelevant. The standard for extradition is not to prove that there is enough evidence to get a conviction but enough reason to continue the investigation, that authority isn't being abused. You use one argument to support a conclusion to a different question.

Your opinion by the way isn't supported by the evidence.

Quote:

Pursuing a case based on evidence that clearly isn't sufficient amounts to harassment.

They don't feel the evidence is insufficient, so I doubt that anyone is going to be charged with harassment. Again, if they feel they have the evidence and that Assange may be guilty, then it's their duty to pursue charges.

Quote:

Again, you are addressing an argument which is not the one I am making.

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

Oh, so you don't don't think the prosecution is politically motivated, even though you've argued that Ny is politically motivated earlier in the thread, you just think that Ny is applying a different standard, because, well, yeah. And Ny is wrong to go after an accused rapist because...other accused rapists have gotten off too easy?

Reminds me of one Stewart Griffon when he said, "I don't want her dead. I just don't want her...to be...alive...anymore."

Quote:

My argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

See above. You have many arguments, although that is the main one.

Quote:

Which is interesting since no one in this thread has made any such claim. Saying we believe "accused rapists [don't need to be] pursued" is a straw man that you and others keep accusing everyone of who hasn't come to the same conclusion you have. It's argument by ad hom, and it's as much a fail as argument from authority.

How is that remotely an ad hom? Are you just throwing out fallacy names and hoping one sticks? But funny you should say that when you also said,

Quote:

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

So is this a good thing or a bad thing? You've indicated it's a bad thing. This means accused rapists normal level of pursuit is acceptable, which of course is what I said is a bad thing to think yet didn't actually accuse you of. However, "It's not that I want her dead..."

Quote:

One need not always believe in said authority to fallaciously use an argument from authority. The basis for your argument here, like the basis for HTL's argument, is the courts are right because there was a legal consensus. There was a legal consensus in the OJ trial. Clearly legal rulings are fallible.

The basis of the UK ruling did not include addressing the common sense of pursuing this case, only the technicalities of the extradition treaty.

Again a criminal trial is different, very different, from a criminal trial. That you keep conflating them, intentionally or not, doesn't speak well to your ability of legal analysis. The UK ruling was of course on the technicalities of the extradition treaty, what did you think it should be about?

They found enough to proceed. You say they shouldn't have and were wrong. But in their finding enough to proceed, they did proceed meaning that they in fact, did have enough. They set the standard. That isn't an appeal to authority, that's how these hearings work in the first place.

Quote:

I like this paragraph from your Wiki link:

I like these parts.

Quote:

Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner...
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

But I like that you hold that the part you like is about biased experts. So Ny is biased, as are two courts in Sweden, as is the court in Britain, for some reason. Your evidence of this?

Quote:

"Soon enough" was not the key to my objection. "Not until learning about each other" was the key point. By their own words, the women didn't appear to object to the sex, they objected to finding out JA was doing more than one woman in the same time frame.

Well that's not true either. The women did object to the sex. The accusation that they are just jealous or after money (that is what you're saying) isn't unique to this case. It's basically the same argument made in every rape case against the accusers. These are not unique facts to this case. Do you hold the same about the Sanduski accusers? Why or why not?

Quote:

We are in the area of opinion and it is my opinion the evidence supports the hypothesis, they became angry with JA after the fact, not during the sex.

And you know this how? What is the source of that information? You would have to be psychic to know that. What, didn't they act like rape victims should? How should rape victims act? Hey, I've had this conversation before, I believe with Men's Rights Advocates defending accused rapists.

Quote:

The rest of your post just rehashes the same stuff. How many ways can you say, you couldn't possibly know and how many ways can I say, I think there is enough to safely base a conclusion on?

I think you're wrong. A trial would sort out if there is more evidence, but wouldn't validate your assertions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

No, just completely no.

Been addressed. I agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I've repeatedly given examples of what sort of 'evidence' could be there, including alternate interpretations of evidence in the public sphere, wording examination of his and their statements, etc. You can stop saying that I haven't as I did in my very first statement speculating on additional 'evidence'.

I asked you for specific hypothetical examples of something that could be gained from another interview with JA short of a confession. If I missed a post please link to it.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Explain how extradition hearings are different and use a different standards of and determine different things from criminal trials is an appeal to authority? Maybe if you say it enough it'll become true?

My repeating the issue is not going to result in you understanding the fallacy you are arguing from.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Irrelevant. The standard for extradition is not to prove that there is enough evidence to get a conviction but enough reason to continue the investigation, that authority isn't being abused. You use one argument to support a conclusion to a different question.

I'm pretty sure prosecutors are supposed to determine if there is enough evidence to charge a person. If not the courts would be clogged with useless cases where there was no hope for successful prosecutions.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Oh, so you don't don't think the prosecution is politically motivated, even though you've argued that Ny is politically motivated earlier in the thread, you just think that Ny is applying a different standard, because, well, yeah. And Ny is wrong to go after an accused rapist because...other accused rapists have gotten off too easy?

To repeat:

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

But my argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

What is it here that you are missing?

Originally Posted by tyr_13

How is that remotely an ad hom?

Claiming that because I don't see this case the way you see this case does not mean I believe accused rapists don't need to be pursued. It is a lie intended to insult, aka an ad hom.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

[snipped nonsensical stuff like:] a criminal trial is different, very different, from a criminal trial. That you keep conflating them,

Originally Posted by tyr_13

They found enough to proceed. You say they shouldn't have and were wrong. But in their finding enough to proceed, they did proceed meaning that they in fact, did have enough. They set the standard. That isn't an appeal to authority, that's how these hearings work in the first place.

The UK court did not rule on the evidence against JA, they ruled on the extradition. They did not rule JA should be tried, they ruled Ny has a right to require him to return to Sweden. That doesn't make Ny right to request the extradition.


[Snipped your denial of argument from authority] It's been addressed.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

... Do you hold the same about the Sanduski accusers? Why or why not?

More ad homs.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

...I think you're wrong. A trial would sort out if there is more evidence, but wouldn't validate your assertions.

'Magical evidence that isn't in the public sphere' argument again. It is so unlikely as to be silly to claim this is a legitimate argument.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Been addressed. I agree to disagree.

This isn't a disagreement of opinion. You said it's all out there. Where is the transcript of the interviews then?

Quote:

I asked you for specific hypothetical examples of something that could be gained from another interview with JA short of a confession. If I missed a post please link to it.

That's not what you asked. You said, "you cannot even hypothesize what that unknown evidence could be short of an unlikely confession." I've given several examples. You want to move the goalposts to something more specific? You're just doing so to elicit more minutia to attack, but fine. Perhaps in his interview, Assange admitted that the sex was on the condition of protection being used, or that he held down the woman with his weight, or made statements that support these accusations by mentioning details that none of us have access too. Perhaps he said something that contradicted something else he said, some other detail. It could be something as minor as the color of the condom packaging if other details of the interviews and reports hinged on it. Cases are made all the time on these details. You'll roll your eyes and attack how 'out there' the speculation is, but it's far from a confession.

Quote:

My repeating the issue is not going to result in you understanding the fallacy you are arguing from.

I'm not arguing from a fallacy, and you've not shown I am. You've asserted it and tried to straw man it into one, but nothing more. Extradition hearings are not criminal trials.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure prosecutors are supposed to determine if there is enough evidence to charge a person. If not the courts would be clogged with useless cases where there was no hope for successful prosecutions.

How does that help support anything you've said or refute what I've said?

Quote:

To repeat:

It is my opinion that there is evidence Ny is applying a different standard to JA than she would have in any other case with the same evidence.

But my argument is, there is not even remotely enough evidence to get a conviction.

What is it here that you are missing?

How that refutes anything I've said in criticism or supports what you've said. "I don't want her dead. I just don't want her to be alive anymore."

Quote:

Claiming that because I don't see this case the way you see this case does not mean I believe accused rapists don't need to be pursued. It is a lie intended to insult, aka an ad hom.

No, criticism Ny for pursuing an accused rapist because other rapists aren't pursued means you don't think rapists should be pursued as much. 'Other accused rapists aren't pursued as much, so Ny is wrong in pursuing him this much,' is what I object to and what you've implied while making no effort to clarify where my reasoning is, 'Other accused rapists aren't pursued this much, but they probably should be pursued more'

You take a lot of offense at your own reasoning. Perhaps you should examine it and clarify if that's not what you mean, rather than simply assert that those aren't linked.

Quote:

Extradition hearings are different from criminal trials. You keep citing criminal trials as if they were the same. They are not.

Quote:

The UK court did not rule on the evidence against JA, they ruled on the extradition. They did not rule JA should be tried, they ruled Ny has a right to require him to return to Sweden. That doesn't make Ny right to request the extradition.

They certainly disagree. I disagree. I didn't say they ruled on the evidence other than to reason that if there were an obvious abuse of the treaty they would have had good reason not to rule as they did. Why do you conflate all these things?

Quote:

[Snipped your denial of argument from authority] It's been addressed.


More ad homs.

Wrong and wrong. So do you hold the same about other rape accusers? Why dodge the question? What about this case makes these standard victim attacks valid?

You are misusing appeal to false authority, mischaracterizing legal proceedings, and generally jumbling issues up to try to avoid criticism about them.

Quote:

'Magical evidence that isn't in the public sphere' argument again. It is so unlikely as to be silly to claim this is a legitimate argument.

Insult as argument. You're not interested in truth, but just scoring points in debate. Continue with your boilplate rape defenses, it no longer matters to me. For those interested in what ad hom and appeal to authority actually entail, there are plenty of resources here on JREF to find out.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your reality differs from mine, tyr.

[BenBurch]

I am starting to think that Ecuador plans to take literally forever making a decision about Assange.

He may spend the rest of his life in the Embassy unless there is a change of government in Ecuador.

[Silhouette]

The Ecuadorian government has told Swedish authorities they can interview WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at its embassy in London. The embassy does not intend to set a deadline for dealing with the case. I'm very curious to see whether Sweden will interview him at the the embassy or continue to deny they can do it legally.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...727-22wfh.html

[BenBurch]

They do have a ruling that they cannot do it, or so I read. This is the same offer assange offered them when he was being extradited.

Plus, suppose they do interview him and decide that his answers are inconsistent or provable false, and it's time to charge him? Of course he flees jurisdiction or remains in that embassy until his dying day. No trial ever happens.

[Silhouette]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

They do have a ruling that they cannot do it, or so I read. This is the same offer assange offered them when he was being extradited.

Plus, suppose they do interview him and decide that his answers are inconsistent or provable false, and it's time to charge him? Of course he flees jurisdiction or remains in that embassy until his dying day. No trial ever happens.

I guess that's a possibility. What's the longest anyone has lived in an embassy?

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I find the likelihood that he actually believes himself to be innocent as close to zero.

As someone whose opinions and general persona I respect immensely I do have to point out that I find this kind of visceral indictment of the personality of a man you've never met to be puzzling.

I would try to fight any kind of extradition attempts against me if I believed I was innocent AND was privy to the kind of information contained in the Stratfor emails detailing spectre secret grand juries being set up. Worrying about CIA plots isn't just delusional rantings if it has a firm foundation in reality.

Also, while not casting judgement of Assange's culpability, if I were being extradited for a crime unique to its jurisdiction that I personally didn't believe warranted being a crime (rape laws in Sweden can be considered extraordinary in the context of any other European legal jurisdiction) and which could result in a conviction under very flimsy standards of evidence (being charged with adultery, or homosexuality, in an Islamic state is one example that springs to mind) then I'd sure as **** fight it too.

[bit_pattern]

Assuming that asylum were granted, what are the legal protocols for getting him out of the country? Surely the police could arrest him on the way to the airport, no? Or is there some diplomatic protection for people in transit?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Silhouette

I guess that's a possibility. What's the longest anyone has lived in an embassy?

Cardinal József Mindszenty took refuge in the US embassy in Hungary from 1956 to 1971.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

As someone whose opinions and general persona I respect immensely I do have to point out that I find this kind of visceral indictment of the personality of a man you've never met to be puzzling.

...

Oh, innocent people should fight extradition when they reasonably expect unfair treatment where they would go to be tried. Without a doubt.

But when I look at the history of this case (all from memory, so feel free to correct anything I don't have correct);

1. Went to Sweden hoping to use their internationally-famous legal system in his favor.
2. He used his celebrity to shag two women he then treated horribly. Whether you think the evidence supports rape or not it is unquestioned that both felt amazingly ill-used.
3. They met, compared stories, and on that basis asked him to take an STD test. He refused. A stunning thing to do under the circumstances.
4. At this point they went to the authorities only to try to force him to get an STD test.
5. The only way the police could force that was to arrest him, and since the circumstances were so horrible with respect to his treatment, they believed a rape case was possible.
6. They had a brief conversation with him in which he also refused an STD test and which left the police with the impression of guilt.
7. Formal interviews required before prosecution were scheduled, and he agreed to that schedule before fleeing jurisdiction.
8. He surfaced in London, and the Swedish government placed a request for his extradition with INTERPOL.
9. He staged a multi-million pound (other people's money) defense of the extradition, losing at every turn in spite of brilliant legal counsel.
10. Finally on track to be hauled back to Sweden for the interviews that would decide if prosecution has been indicated, he takes refuge in the embassy of one of the most repressive political leaders in the Americas, calculating that he could use the opportunity for that leader to give everybody else a black eye to manipulate safety from prosecution.
11. He still refuses an STD test.

That is all this is about.

All of the rest of this malarky is a *********** smoke screen.

He refuses an STD test.

That says guilt to me.

[BenBurch]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/assan...728-232tg.html

Quote:

ECUADOR'S Foreign Affairs Minister will meet the mother of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, who is holed up at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, Quito has announced.

Ricardo Patino is due to meet Christine Assange tomorrow to discuss her son's application for asylum in the Latin American nation, the Foreign Ministry said.

Ecuador will respond to Mr Assange's request on August 12, Mr Patino said, after the London Olympics.

''We will take decisions that do not affect our relations with Britain,'' he said, explaining that Quito would be careful not to disrupt the Olympic Games.

<SNIP>

If so, Assange is in for either a long stay or a cold shoulder.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

But when I look at the history of this case (all from memory, so feel free to correct anything I don't have correct);

Here's a memory refresher (program can be watched online, see link in quote):

Originally Posted by WSWS

Australian TV program exposes Assange frame-up
By Mike Head, 28 July 2012

“Four Corners”, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program, this week broadcast what amounted to an exposé of the frame-up of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Assange remains inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, seeking political asylum from the threat of being removed to Sweden, which would in turn facilitate extradition to the US.

The program provided a valuable service by simply piecing together what happened in the three crucial weeks after Assange arrived in Sweden in mid-August 2010. Assange was there to address a conference and investigate the possibility of hosting WikiLeaks’ operations in a secure computer facility.

By tracing the chronology, the program also clarified the connection between the Swedish witchhunt and the Grand Jury operation underway in the United States to charge Assange with espionage for WikiLeaks’ exposures of US war crimes (see: “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange”).

The program provided substantial evidence that the allegations against him were false and politically motivated. The unproven accusations were used to blacken his name in Sweden and around the world, and counter the widespread public support that he and WikiLeaks had won for courageously exposing the crimes and machinations of the US and other powers.

[detailed summary of program/chronology follows]

[tyr_13]

I'll probably come back and read more later but this stood out to me so far.

"That same night, a prosecutor issued a warrant for Assange’s arrest. The prosecutor’s office did not contact Assange. Instead, within hours, it leaked to the tabloid newspaper Expressen the statements made by the two women. The newspaper’s front page read: “Assange hunted for rape in Sweden.”

This was just the first evidence of high-level collusion, involving the police, the prosecutor’s office and the media, to destroy Assange’s reputation."

That's not evidence of high-level collusion. It might be consistent with it, but it's also consistent with a rape case involving a famous person, but it isn't evidence.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I'll probably come back and read more later but this stood out to me so far.

"That same night, a prosecutor issued a warrant for Assange’s arrest. The prosecutor’s office did not contact Assange. Instead, within hours, it leaked to the tabloid newspaper Expressen the statements made by the two women. The newspaper’s front page read: “Assange hunted for rape in Sweden.”

This was just the first evidence of high-level collusion, involving the police, the prosecutor’s office and the media, to destroy Assange’s reputation."

That's not evidence of high-level collusion. It might be consistent with it, but it's also consistent with a rape case involving a famous person, but it isn't evidence.

They couldn't contact Assange.

He had fled.

His lawyer claimed he didn't know how to contact him.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Here's a memory refresher (program can be watched online, see link in quote):

And since I cannot watch it, care to summarize how I have anything at all wrong in what I posted? Point-by-point?

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

And since I cannot watch it, care to summarize how I have anything at all wrong in what I posted? Point-by-point?

Not at all. There's a transcript below the video (click the button "show transcript") and a summary on WSWS.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I'll probably come back and read more later but this stood out to me so far.

I just finished reading it. It's all cherry picking and speculation, all of which has already been discussed in the thread. It doesn't gain any more credence just because that author is saying it. The people who found it lacking are given nothing new to go over and the people who found it convincing will just continue to do so.

Thanks for the link but it sadly doesn't add any information.

[Skeptic Guy]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Oh, innocent people should fight extradition when they reasonably expect unfair treatment where they would go to be tried. Without a doubt.

But when I look at the history of this case (all from memory, so feel free to correct anything I don't have correct);

1. Went to Sweden hoping to use their internationally-famous legal system in his favor.
2. He used his celebrity to shag two women he then treated horribly. Whether you think the evidence supports rape or not it is unquestioned that both felt amazingly ill-used.
3. They met, compared stories, and on that basis asked him to take an STD test. He refused. A stunning thing to do under the circumstances.
4. At this point they went to the authorities only to try to force him to get an STD test.
5. The only way the police could force that was to arrest him, and since the circumstances were so horrible with respect to his treatment, they believed a rape case was possible.
6. They had a brief conversation with him in which he also refused an STD test and which left the police with the impression of guilt.
7. Formal interviews required before prosecution were scheduled, and he agreed to that schedule before fleeing jurisdiction.
8. He surfaced in London, and the Swedish government placed a request for his extradition with INTERPOL.
9. He staged a multi-million pound (other people's money) defense of the extradition, losing at every turn in spite of brilliant legal counsel.
10. Finally on track to be hauled back to Sweden for the interviews that would decide if prosecution has been indicated, he takes refuge in the embassy of one of the most repressive political leaders in the Americas, calculating that he could use the opportunity for that leader to give everybody else a black eye to manipulate safety from prosecution.
11. He still refuses an STD test.

That is all this is about.

All of the rest of this malarky is a *********** smoke screen.

He refuses an STD test.

That says guilt to me.

This is exactly it. And why I think he needs to go to Sweden and stop acting like a martyr. If anyone in the world had been accused of doing what he allegedly did, they'd have been dragged back to Sweden by the scruff of the neck.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Thanks for the link but it sadly doesn't add any information.

This thread is going round in circles for a long time. Skeptic Ginger has done several summaries. There is no need to add information to show how shaky the accusations and the behaviour of the accusers is. But the film has it nicely all in one place and some interviews with witnesses for A.'s stay with the women which were not mentioned afaik (given up following the "argument" here), in chronological order with the communication done by Ardin (meticulously ignored by the likes of Ben). If that doesn't help you come over your prejudices, "sadly" nothing will. Not that it matters.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Not at all. There's a transcript below the video (click the button "show transcript") and a summary on WSWS.

Does it say when he took an STD test?

If not, no reason to read it.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

This thread is going round in circles for a long time. Skeptic Ginger has done several summaries. There is no need to add information to show how shaky the accusations and the behaviour of the accusers is. But the film has it nicely all in one place and some interviews with witnesses for A.'s stay with the women which were not mentioned afaik (given up following the "argument" here), in chronological order with the communication done by Ardin (meticulously ignored by the likes of Ben). If that doesn't help you come over your prejudices, "sadly" nothing will. Not that it matters.

Yes, yes, everyone who disagrees is prejudiced, my cherry picking is valid, rape victims should act this way and not that, etc, etc.

It's red herring because it doesn't actually address any argument, besides the 'they didn't act like rape victims' one. The chronology doesn't actually tell us anything. It's not evidence when it's consistent with several hypothesis.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Does it say when he took an STD test?

If not, no reason to read it.

I did not expect you to read it. And I don't buy that you can't watch it. You are far from credible on this issue, given your deep hatred of Assange, and your "memory" reflects that.

EOT

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

I did not expect you to read it. And I don't buy that you can't watch it. You are far from credible on this issue, given your deep hatred of Assange, and your "memory" reflects that.

EOT

You try making any video come though this firewall.