[Moderated] Julian Assange: rapist or not? - Page 99

appalling · 28th November 2012, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Now, if you only could understand that:

Statement 1:
We do not know for sure that Assange is innocent

Granted.

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Statement 2:
There is legitimate ground for suspicion that the US/UK government may be after Assange for political reasons

may not be mutully exclusive, we would do a huge step forward in understanding each other

As you have stated yourself, the US can get Assange whether he is in the UK or Sweden, and whether he is facing sexual assault charges or not.

The accusations do not put Assange in any extra danger. If what you have stated before is true, then they are not essential to any plan the US may or may not have to get him.

You want everybody to agree that there is the possibility of political influence while ignoring the fact that the US does not need to influence a trial regarding Assange's personal behaviour. Just because you say they could does not mean that they would when they don't have to.

This isn't believing in the inherent goodness of a system. You don't need to be pro-US to see that Assange should face non-Wikileaks-related accusations.

tyr_13 · 28th November 2012, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Please quote

You post here says so. You also keep bringing up other failures of the legal system and claim that without fixing those, even those involving people who are dead means it's wrong to go after Assange now.

Maybe if you made better arguments, coherent ones, you wouldn't have to pretend you didn't make bad arguments.

tyr_13 · 28th November 2012, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by John Mekki

This is what I have said:

And this is what you put into my mouth

Because that's what your argument means. You're saying that we can't try Assange in Sweden until Bush is tried, until some dictator who is dead is brought to justice. You're saying that because some people aren't brought to justice, Assange shouldn't be and you call that justice. You're saying that because you and some other people suspect that politics might be influencing something then we should make both governments of the US and of Sweden to burden their justice systems with political and extralegal considerations.

These are the arguments you have made. These are what your words mean. Yet when confronted with this you flee from your arguments. It's as if you were saying, 'I don't want her dead, I just wish she weren't alive anymore'.

appalling · 28th November 2012, 10:18 PM

Your argument is to wait to put sexual assault accusations to trial until we deal with more serious crimes.

I don't see how you can argue that you're saying anything else.

theprestige · 28th November 2012, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by appalling

Your argument is to wait to put sexual assault accusations to trial until we deal with more serious crimes.

I don't see how you can argue that you're saying anything else.

Actually, that's pretty easy to argue. You just have to keep in mind what John Mekki's thesis actually is:

John Mekki's thesis is that Assange has been set up by the Swedes, at the behest of the US government, and that the UK has also collaborated in this setup, for the same reason. He offers as evidence the fact that Sweden does not wait to put these particular sexual assault accusations to trial, even though there are other worse cases (in John Mekki's opinion) that go untried.
The fact of these worse, untried cases is not offered as an argument that Assange's case should wait. It's offered as evidence that Assange's case is a setup.

The main problem with this line of reasoning--as I'm sure is already obvious to everybody here--is that John Mekki has already decided to believe that the US is involved in this case somehow. So any appearance of a double standard or failure of justice in the US is automatically considered evidence of a double standard or failulre of justice in Sweden.

Take away the assumption that the US is involved, and John Mekki's entire thesis collapses for lack of support.

Of course, all this innuendo and supposition must take the place of real arguments and evidence, because it's clear that the Swedish justice system is acting properly and fairly in this case. Even John Mekki admits this when pressed. Even John Mekki agrees that Assange should be extradited to Sweden and stand trial.

nathan · 28th November 2012, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Is there any remote possibility that Assange did not had sex with this woman or that the woman may be simply lying when she is saying this?
Is there any possibility that this may be the case?

Well, I suppose there's the remote possibility that JA and his defence team are colluding with the prosecutor when they admit that JA had sex with the women.

appalling · 28th November 2012, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Actually, that's pretty easy to argue. You just have to keep in mind what John Mekki's thesis actually is:

John Mekki's thesis is that Assange has been set up by the Swedes, at the behest of the US government, and that the UK has also collaborated in this setup, for the same reason. He offers as evidence the fact that Sweden does not wait to put these particular sexual assault accusations to trial, even though there are other worse cases (in John Mekki's opinion) that go untried.
The fact of these worse, untried cases is not offered as an argument that Assange's case should wait. It's offered as evidence that Assange's case is a setup.

The main problem with this line of reasoning--as I'm sure is already obvious to everybody here--is that John Mekki has already decided to believe that the US is involved in this case somehow. So any appearance of a double standard or failure of justice in the US is automatically considered evidence of a double standard or failulre of justice in Sweden.

Take away the assumption that the US is involved, and John Mekki's entire thesis collapses for lack of support.

Of course, all this innuendo and supposition must take the place of real arguments and evidence, because it's clear that the Swedish justice system is acting properly and fairly in this case. Even John Mekki admits this when pressed. Even John Mekki agrees that Assange should be extradited to Sweden and stand trial.

He has made a lot of these fallacious arguments, true.

But, if you were arguing from his premises, how would you reconcile that he implies it is a great big set-up from a government that has no trouble getting what it wants, with his other argument which is that what Assange is accused does not even look like rape to him?

It would seem that if you thought that an untrustworthy government was setting someone up with murder, say, that there would be a body, and lots of government witnesses, and that it would seem like that person was a murderer.

How do you argue that a government is working overtime to set you up as a horrible criminal while arguing that there is no visible crime and that the victim had a great time?

Is it throwing anything at the wall and seeing what sticks? Which does he believe?

nathan · 28th November 2012, 11:22 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20537157

he brought it on himself. Perhaps he'll have to decide whether he needs lungs more than he needs not to go to Sweden.

"the city is also dark at this time - we have very little daylight in London."

Hm, why doesn't every human living north of about 51 degrees have a chronic lung infection at this time of year? Why didn't he get one last year at this time?

appalling · 28th November 2012, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Is there any remote possibility that Assange did not had sex with this woman or that the woman may be simply lying when she is saying this?
Is there any possibility that this may be the case?

Oh. Yes. I forgot. He has no idea what the accusations even are.

Zeuzzz · 29th November 2012, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Except you left out the condition in reality;

We can't yet be 100% sure of Assange's guilt.

Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread.

No wonder he does not want to go to Sweden if he will simply be immediately extradited to the USA. Can't blame him at all. He would be left to rot in a cell the rest of his life like Bradley Manning, probably without trial.

Zeuzzz · 29th November 2012, 03:19 AM

It would be easier to believe these unproved accusations if the girls did not seem so happy after the day after they were 'raped'.

http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy...-has-cia-ties/

Quote:

[The] phenomena of social networking through the internet and mobile phones constrains Swedish authorities from augmenting the evidence against Assange because it would look even less credible in the face of tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wilén boasting of their respective conquests after the “crimes”.

In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape.

Also if the Swedish police actually made their mind up about there actually being a shred of evidence or not would help. They seem to think there is no evidence.

http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy...-has-cia-ties/

Quote:

Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.

Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. The damage to Assange’s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.

Wudang · 29th November 2012, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread.

How can he be proven innocent or guilty without a trial? Why is immune from legal procedures?

Quote:

No wonder he does not want to go to Sweden if he will simply be immediately extradited to the USA. Can't blame him at all. He would be left to rot in a cell the rest of his life like Bradley Manning, probably without trial.

He will not be and cannot be. Please make at least a little effort to familiarize with the case. It's several orders of magnitude easier to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden where he'll actually be protected by the EAW framework.

Tolls · 29th November 2012, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread.

No wonder he does not want to go to Sweden if he will simply be immediately extradited to the USA. Can't blame him at all. He would be left to rot in a cell the rest of his life like Bradley Manning, probably without trial.

You haven't read the thread, have you?
Not that that's terribly surprising, but this idea of extradition to the US has been explained several times as being nonsense.

He has not been found guilty, because there has not been a trial. The extradition has been granted as he is wanted for trial. That's how these things work.

People are extradited all the time to face trial, you know.

Here_to_learn · 29th November 2012, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Also if the Swedish police actually made their mind up about there actually being a shred of evidence or not would help. They seem to think there is no evidence.

First of all, it's not the police that make that decision, it's the prosecutor. Secondly, they have made up their mind, and has been proceeding with the investigation since Sept 1st, 2010.

And if you are interested in the actual accusations you can find them summarized from the English courts proceedings here.

BenBurch · 29th November 2012, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by nathan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20537157

he brought it on himself. Perhaps he'll have to decide whether he needs lungs more than he needs not to go to Sweden.

"the city is also dark at this time - we have very little daylight in London."

Hm, why doesn't every human living north of about 51 degrees have a chronic lung infection at this time of year? Why didn't he get one last year at this time?

Maybe? http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-04-01-05

nathan · 29th November 2012, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread.

You seem to be mistaking this thread for a court of law.

000063 · 29th November 2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Accusing Assange of rape totally devalues the meaning of the word rape.

If you have consensual sex with two women/politicians and then fall asleep next to them, it might be terribly bad manners to not fully re-engage with them during the night if you want to repeat the previous actions, it could even be called sexual harassment, sure, but it is not rape in the traditional definition of the word.

Take it up with Swedish lawmakers.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

There is absolutely no evidence that he did that. There also absolutely no evidence he even did anything that would hold up to scrutiny in a Swedish court of law. ...

So you claim, yet he is avoiding said court of law.

Odd.

Originally Posted by uke2se

You know, a simple "I was wrong, and I appreciate you correcting me" wouldn't go amiss when you are caught fibbing with your pants down.

No, best to move the goalposts.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Now what I am going to say here is quite controversial. Hopefully I can hit ten on that random list of random things people are judging me by.
...

Fringe reset to attempt to avoid inconvenient facts.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The hilarity of this thread is going to increase directly proportionally to the lack of critical thinking, I predict.

Already making me chuckle with patriotic pith.

I will return in the morning

Appeal to ridicule, dodge.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

You seen that awful (ly accurate) documentary about the epidemic of woman rape in the army? Apparently its literally 50/50 if you are raped or not in the US army being a woman. I have forgotten the exact name of the documentary.

Red herring, attempted subject change.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread.

Except for the multiple people who have specifically said that he should face trial in order to determine his guilt or innocence.

Quote:

No wonder he does not want to go to Sweden if he will simply be immediately extradited to the USA. Can't blame him at all. He would be left to rot in a cell the rest of his life like Bradley Manning, probably without trial.

What charges has the US made against him?

eirik · 29th November 2012, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread.

That applies to courts, as a safeguard for a set of pre-defined government sanctions, such as putting people in jail. We don’t do that unless a person is proven guilty in a court of law.

Obviously it does not apply to me as a civilian, nor does it apply to women who are raped.

Example: If you, god forbid, were raped, no one would stop you from speaking your mind of whether you were raped or not prior to a trial.

eirik · 29th November 2012, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by 000063

Take it up with Swedish lawmakers.

And lawmakers in any civilized country on earth for that matter. Consent is not a formality in sexual relations.

BenBurch · 29th November 2012, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by eirik

And lawmakers in any civilized country on earth for that matter. Consent is not a formality in sexual relations.

What these people want is a separate law for their favored ones.

superfreddy · 29th November 2012, 08:17 AM

This hypocrite dodged questions about Ecuador's freedom of the press. He ended up calling a country that's bending over backwards to keep him out of jail "insignificant". The hell with this mofo!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...es-ecuador.cnn

BenBurch · 29th November 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by superfreddy

This hypocrite dodged questions about Ecuador's freedom of the press. He ended up calling a country that's bending over backwards to keep him out of jail "insignificant". The hell with this mofo!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...es-ecuador.cnn

Some conspiracy theorizing; Is it in Ecuador's interest that this matter is ever resolved? Or not?

appalling · 29th November 2012, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread.

If you believe that then the women should be innocent of being called liars by you until proven guilty.

You quote something characterizing a Wikileaks promotional event as a party celebrating Assange. They were wikileaks supporters promoting wikileaks. If a woman goes to work the day after something sketchy happens with a superior, it is not proof that nothing happened unless you are willfully ignorant.

You quote texts that don't talk about sexual assault as proof that there must not have been sexual assaults.

You don't understand principles.

appalling · 29th November 2012, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

It would be easier to believe these unproved accusations if the girls did not seem so happy after the day after they were 'raped'.

You have shown that you have no idea how sexual assault survivors would act.

Quote:

Also if the Swedish police actually made their mind up about there actually being a shred of evidence or not would help. They seem to think there is no evidence.

Their evidence should be examined in a trial.

Quote:

Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape.

Aren't you embarrassed in 2012 to link to a 2010 article that claims that consensual sex in Sweden is illegal? The accusation in one case is that she was asleep, and there was no consent. The other accusation involved force. You can say the accusations may be proven wrong, but it is dishonest to say they are accusations of purely consensual sex.

superfreddy · 29th November 2012, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Some conspiracy theorizing; Is it in Ecuador's interest that this matter is ever resolved? Or not?

I believe Ecuador is in this mess because president Correa is an attention whore. So, no, I don't think Ecuador is really interested in this matter being resolved. That would take it out of the papers.

BenBurch · 29th November 2012, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by superfreddy

I believe Ecuador is in this mess because president Correa is an attention whore. So, no, I don't think Ecuador is really interested in this matter being resolved. That would take it out of the papers.

Exactly my thinking.

And a dying Assange being helped by Ecuador while being cruelly denied hospital facilities by the evil US/UK/Swedish empire seems to be a big win...

Zeuzzz · 29th November 2012, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by superfreddy

This hypocrite dodged questions about Ecuador's freedom of the press. He ended up calling a country that's bending over backwards to keep him out of jail "insignificant". The hell with this mofo!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...es-ecuador.cnn

Completely reasonable interview. That news anchor was hilarious.

You should check a thread I started where he speaks with the President of Equador, they are very good friends and the president is the most popular president Ecuador has ever had with the people. He's very charismatic and very intelligent, he has a doctorate in economics and has really sorted out his countries economy.

Julian Assange Interviews Rafael Correa on 'The World Tomorrow'

Zeuzzz · 29th November 2012, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by appalling

If you believe that then the women should be innocent of being called liars by you until proven guilty.

Pretty much anyone without blinders on can look at all the evidence and conclude there girls are not only lying about the rape charges but have no evidence and ulterior motives. I have linked to just a few previously. Apart from John Mekki they were all ignored and other parts of my posts chosen to be replied to by people that disagreed. Pretty funny.

PhantomWolf · 29th November 2012, 12:46 PM

You know I think I'm far to optimistic. I would have thought that after nearly 4000 posts in this thread that any new comer to it would have read at least enough of it to get a grip on the basic facts of the case, but nope, it's like wack-a-rat, the same dead facts get resurrected and argued again and again. It seems that those coming in to support Assange don't even actually know what the actual allegations against him even are. After all this time, that's just sad, you'd think that they'd have at least read the actual court and police documents that are availible rather than just accepting a bunch of blogs as gospel. I guess I expect too much.

Zeuzzz · 29th November 2012, 12:48 PM

Hello Phantom Wolf. Can you -please post these basic facts of the case people keep getting wrong? Since you are complaining about people here you should have a list of these incorrect facts you can help educate us with.

PhantomWolf · 29th November 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Pretty much anyone without blinders on can look at all the evidence and conclude there girls are not only lying about the rape charges but have no evidence and ulterior motives. I have linked to just a few previously. Apart from John Mekki they were all ignored and other parts of my posts chosen to be replied to by people that disagreed. Pretty funny.

I don't believe that you have looked at the evidence, in fact I know you haven't because if you had you know that you were making a critical error each time you say the underlined bit.

PhantomWolf · 29th November 2012, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Hello Phantom Wolf. Can you -please post these basic facts of the case people keep getting wrong? Since you are complaining about people here you should have a list of these incorrect facts you can help educate us with.

Well to start with, what are the allegations against Assange?

Zeuzzz · 29th November 2012, 12:50 PM

I provided evidence on the last few pages that is court worthy and will no doubt be brought up if Assange has to face court. You have not commented on them. I can list them again if you missed them?

Zeuzzz · 29th November 2012, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Well to start with, what are the allegations against Assange?

No, I want a list from you. I have an idea. Since you are mocking my ignorance you should educate me. This is an educational forum.

PhantomWolf · 29th November 2012, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

No, I want a list from you. I have an idea. Since you are mocking my ignorance you should educate me. This is an educational forum.

If you had read the police files and the Court documents you'd have more than "an idea" you would know. As it is the answer has been posted multiple times in this thread. Here_to_learn has posted a entire list of commonly misbelieved things about the case, with links to agreed upon facts and other documents, and has done so multiple times. Try actually reading some of the previous 3900 odd posts.

Hallo Alfie · 29th November 2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Exactly my thinking.

And a dying Assange being helped by Ecuador while being cruelly denied hospital facilities by the evil US/UK/Swedish empire seems to be a big win...

There are no doctors in Ecuador? No chance an England based doctor could see him in the embassy?

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Pretty much anyone without blinders on can look at all the evidence and conclude there girls are not only lying about the rape charges but have no evidence and ulterior motives.

Either that or they were raped. Maybe a trial where the evidence of both sides can be presented might help to determine the truth.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

I have linked to just a few previously. Apart from John Mekki they were all ignored and other parts of my posts chosen to be replied to by people that disagreed. Pretty funny.

Indeed a very solid defense you have put forward: Innocent by speculation.

Zeuzzz · 29th November 2012, 12:59 PM

Got it. So your not going to tell me the details about the case I am continually getting wrong? You just say I need to read the entire thread?

Nice shifting of the goal posts.

You could just post a few off the top of your head now, to save time.

appalling · 29th November 2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Pretty much anyone without blinders on can look at all the evidence and conclude there girls are not only lying about the rape charges but have no evidence and ulterior motives. I have linked to just a few previously. Apart from John Mekki they were all ignored and other parts of my posts chosen to be replied to by people that disagreed. Pretty funny.

You have proof that there is no evidence before a trial has even begun.

There is no reason to take you seriously.

PhantomWolf · 29th November 2012, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Got it. So your not going to tell me the details about the case I am continually getting wrong? You just say I need to read the entire thread?

Nice shifting of the goal posts.

You could just post a few off the top of your head now, to save time.

No I'm not going to tell you, I expect you to go and read the police files, the agreed upon facts, and the Court Documents and educate yourself from the original sources instead of having others spoon feed things to you, be it me or the blogs you keep parroting. That way you get to see what is actually there, and not get spin from anyone else.

Zeuzzz · 29th November 2012, 01:08 PM

Nice replies. Truly great, packed with information for me to comment on.

28th November 2012, 06:31 PM	#3922
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,657	Originally Posted by John Mekki Please quote You post here says so. You also keep bringing up other failures of the legal system and claim that without fixing those, even those involving people who are dead means it's wrong to go after Assange now. Maybe if you made better arguments, coherent ones, you wouldn't have to pretend you didn't make bad arguments.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

28th November 2012, 10:17 PM	#3923
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,657	Originally Posted by John Mekki This is what I have said: And this is what you put into my mouth Because that's what your argument means. You're saying that we can't try Assange in Sweden until Bush is tried, until some dictator who is dead is brought to justice. You're saying that because some people aren't brought to justice, Assange shouldn't be and you call that justice. You're saying that because you and some other people suspect that politics might be influencing something then we should make both governments of the US and of Sweden to burden their justice systems with political and extralegal considerations. These are the arguments you have made. These are what your words mean. Yet when confronted with this you flee from your arguments. It's as if you were saying, 'I don't want her dead, I just wish she weren't alive anymore'.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

28th November 2012, 10:49 PM	#3925
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,565	Originally Posted by appalling Your argument is to wait to put sexual assault accusations to trial until we deal with more serious crimes. I don't see how you can argue that you're saying anything else. Actually, that's pretty easy to argue. You just have to keep in mind what John Mekki's thesis actually is: John Mekki's thesis is that Assange has been set up by the Swedes, at the behest of the US government, and that the UK has also collaborated in this setup, for the same reason. He offers as evidence the fact that Sweden does not wait to put these particular sexual assault accusations to trial, even though there are other worse cases (in John Mekki's opinion) that go untried. The fact of these worse, untried cases is not offered as an argument that Assange's case should wait. It's offered as evidence that Assange's case is a setup. The main problem with this line of reasoning--as I'm sure is already obvious to everybody here--is that John Mekki has already decided to believe that the US is involved in this case somehow. So any appearance of a double standard or failure of justice in the US is automatically considered evidence of a double standard or failulre of justice in Sweden. Take away the assumption that the US is involved, and John Mekki's entire thesis collapses for lack of support. Of course, all this innuendo and supposition must take the place of real arguments and evidence, because it's clear that the Swedish justice system is acting properly and fairly in this case. Even John Mekki admits this when pressed. Even John Mekki agrees that Assange should be extradited to Sweden and stand trial.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,565	Last edited by theprestige; 28th November 2012 at 10:50 PM.

28th November 2012, 11:15 PM	#3926
nathan Zygoticly Phased Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arkham City Posts: 3,160	Originally Posted by John Mekki Is there any remote possibility that Assange did not had sex with this woman or that the woman may be simply lying when she is saying this? Is there any possibility that this may be the case? Well, I suppose there's the remote possibility that JA and his defence team are colluding with the prosecutor when they admit that JA had sex with the women.
	__________________ Crank works have one advantage: they don't really lose anything in translation. Skeptic That's the beauty of Paranormal claims - there are no failures, only newly discovered restrictions on the ability. Ashles

28th November 2012, 11:22 PM	#3928
nathan Zygoticly Phased Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arkham City Posts: 3,160	http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20537157 he brought it on himself. Perhaps he'll have to decide whether he needs lungs more than he needs not to go to Sweden. "the city is also dark at this time - we have very little daylight in London." Hm, why doesn't every human living north of about 51 degrees have a chronic lung infection at this time of year? Why didn't he get one last year at this time?
	__________________ Crank works have one advantage: they don't really lose anything in translation. Skeptic That's the beauty of Paranormal claims - there are no failures, only newly discovered restrictions on the ability. Ashles Last edited by nathan; 28th November 2012 at 11:24 PM.

28th November 2012, 05:13 PM	#3921
appalling Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Beyond the reach of your cars. Posts: 320	Originally Posted by John Mekki Now, if you only could understand that: Statement 1: We do not know for sure that Assange is innocent Granted. Originally Posted by John Mekki Statement 2: There is legitimate ground for suspicion that the US/UK government may be after Assange for political reasons may not be mutully exclusive, we would do a huge step forward in understanding each other As you have stated yourself, the US can get Assange whether he is in the UK or Sweden, and whether he is facing sexual assault charges or not. The accusations do not put Assange in any extra danger. If what you have stated before is true, then they are not essential to any plan the US may or may not have to get him. You want everybody to agree that there is the possibility of political influence while ignoring the fact that the US does not need to influence a trial regarding Assange's personal behaviour. Just because you say they could does not mean that they would when they don't have to. This isn't believing in the inherent goodness of a system. You don't need to be pro-US to see that Assange should face non-Wikileaks-related accusations.

28th November 2012, 10:18 PM	#3924
appalling Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Beyond the reach of your cars. Posts: 320	Your argument is to wait to put sexual assault accusations to trial until we deal with more serious crimes. I don't see how you can argue that you're saying anything else.

28th November 2012, 11:21 PM	#3927
appalling Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Beyond the reach of your cars. Posts: 320	Originally Posted by theprestige Actually, that's pretty easy to argue. You just have to keep in mind what John Mekki's thesis actually is: John Mekki's thesis is that Assange has been set up by the Swedes, at the behest of the US government, and that the UK has also collaborated in this setup, for the same reason. He offers as evidence the fact that Sweden does not wait to put these particular sexual assault accusations to trial, even though there are other worse cases (in John Mekki's opinion) that go untried. The fact of these worse, untried cases is not offered as an argument that Assange's case should wait. It's offered as evidence that Assange's case is a setup. The main problem with this line of reasoning--as I'm sure is already obvious to everybody here--is that John Mekki has already decided to believe that the US is involved in this case somehow. So any appearance of a double standard or failure of justice in the US is automatically considered evidence of a double standard or failulre of justice in Sweden. Take away the assumption that the US is involved, and John Mekki's entire thesis collapses for lack of support. Of course, all this innuendo and supposition must take the place of real arguments and evidence, because it's clear that the Swedish justice system is acting properly and fairly in this case. Even John Mekki admits this when pressed. Even John Mekki agrees that Assange should be extradited to Sweden and stand trial. He has made a lot of these fallacious arguments, true. But, if you were arguing from his premises, how would you reconcile that he implies it is a great big set-up from a government that has no trouble getting what it wants, with his other argument which is that what Assange is accused does not even look like rape to him? It would seem that if you thought that an untrustworthy government was setting someone up with murder, say, that there would be a body, and lots of government witnesses, and that it would seem like that person was a murderer. How do you argue that a government is working overtime to set you up as a horrible criminal while arguing that there is no visible crime and that the victim had a great time? Is it throwing anything at the wall and seeing what sticks? Which does he believe?

28th November 2012, 11:23 PM	#3929
appalling Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Beyond the reach of your cars. Posts: 320	Originally Posted by John Mekki Is there any remote possibility that Assange did not had sex with this woman or that the woman may be simply lying when she is saying this? Is there any possibility that this may be the case? Oh. Yes. I forgot. He has no idea what the accusations even are.

29th November 2012, 02:50 AM	#3930
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by BenBurch Except you left out the condition in reality; We can't yet be 100% sure of Assange's guilt. Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread. No wonder he does not want to go to Sweden if he will simply be immediately extradited to the USA. Can't blame him at all. He would be left to rot in a cell the rest of his life like Bradley Manning, probably without trial.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

29th November 2012, 03:19 AM	#3931
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	It would be easier to believe these unproved accusations if the girls did not seem so happy after the day after they were 'raped'. http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy...-has-cia-ties/ Quote: [The] phenomena of social networking through the internet and mobile phones constrains Swedish authorities from augmenting the evidence against Assange because it would look even less credible in the face of tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wilén boasting of their respective conquests after the “crimes”. In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape. Also if the Swedish police actually made their mind up about there actually being a shred of evidence or not would help. They seem to think there is no evidence. http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy...-has-cia-ties/ Quote: Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity. Sweden’s Public Prosecutor’s Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was “no evidence”. The damage to Assange’s reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

29th November 2012, 03:49 AM	#3932
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,243	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread. How can he be proven innocent or guilty without a trial? Why is immune from legal procedures? Quote: No wonder he does not want to go to Sweden if he will simply be immediately extradited to the USA. Can't blame him at all. He would be left to rot in a cell the rest of his life like Bradley Manning, probably without trial. He will not be and cannot be. Please make at least a little effort to familiarize with the case. It's several orders of magnitude easier to extradite him from the UK than from Sweden where he'll actually be protected by the EAW framework.
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

29th November 2012, 04:02 AM	#3933
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,121	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread. No wonder he does not want to go to Sweden if he will simply be immediately extradited to the USA. Can't blame him at all. He would be left to rot in a cell the rest of his life like Bradley Manning, probably without trial. You haven't read the thread, have you? Not that that's terribly surprising, but this idea of extradition to the US has been explained several times as being nonsense. He has not been found guilty, because there has not been a trial. The extradition has been granted as he is wanted for trial. That's how these things work. People are extradited all the time to face trial, you know.
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,121

29th November 2012, 04:08 AM	#3934
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,043	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Also if the Swedish police actually made their mind up about there actually being a shred of evidence or not would help. They seem to think there is no evidence. First of all, it's not the police that make that decision, it's the prosecutor. Secondly, they have made up their mind, and has been proceeding with the investigation since Sept 1st, 2010. And if you are interested in the actual accusations you can find them summarized from the English courts proceedings here.

29th November 2012, 05:11 AM	#3935
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,107	Originally Posted by nathan http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20537157 he brought it on himself. Perhaps he'll have to decide whether he needs lungs more than he needs not to go to Sweden. "the city is also dark at this time - we have very little daylight in London." Hm, why doesn't every human living north of about 51 degrees have a chronic lung infection at this time of year? Why didn't he get one last year at this time? Maybe? http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-04-01-05
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

29th November 2012, 05:13 AM	#3936
nathan Zygoticly Phased Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Arkham City Posts: 3,160	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread. You seem to be mistaking this thread for a court of law.
	__________________ Crank works have one advantage: they don't really lose anything in translation. Skeptic That's the beauty of Paranormal claims - there are no failures, only newly discovered restrictions on the ability. Ashles

29th November 2012, 05:19 AM	#3937
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,734	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Accusing Assange of rape totally devalues the meaning of the word rape. If you have consensual sex with two women/politicians and then fall asleep next to them, it might be terribly bad manners to not fully re-engage with them during the night if you want to repeat the previous actions, it could even be called sexual harassment, sure, but it is not rape in the traditional definition of the word. Take it up with Swedish lawmakers. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz There is absolutely no evidence that he did that. There also absolutely no evidence he even did anything that would hold up to scrutiny in a Swedish court of law. ... So you claim, yet he is avoiding said court of law. Odd. Originally Posted by uke2se You know, a simple "I was wrong, and I appreciate you correcting me" wouldn't go amiss when you are caught fibbing with your pants down. No, best to move the goalposts. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Now what I am going to say here is quite controversial. Hopefully I can hit ten on that random list of random things people are judging me by. ... Fringe reset to attempt to avoid inconvenient facts. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz The hilarity of this thread is going to increase directly proportionally to the lack of critical thinking, I predict. Already making me chuckle with patriotic pith. I will return in the morning Appeal to ridicule, dodge. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz You seen that awful (ly accurate) documentary about the epidemic of woman rape in the army? Apparently its literally 50/50 if you are raped or not in the US army being a woman. I have forgotten the exact name of the documentary. Red herring, attempted subject change. Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread. Except for the multiple people who have specifically said that he should face trial in order to determine his guilt or innocence. Quote: No wonder he does not want to go to Sweden if he will simply be immediately extradited to the USA. Can't blame him at all. He would be left to rot in a cell the rest of his life like Bradley Manning, probably without trial. What charges has the US made against him?
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo Last edited by 000063; 29th November 2012 at 05:42 AM.

29th November 2012, 05:20 AM	#3938
eirik Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: norway Posts: 493	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread. That applies to courts, as a safeguard for a set of pre-defined government sanctions, such as putting people in jail. We don’t do that unless a person is proven guilty in a court of law. Obviously it does not apply to me as a civilian, nor does it apply to women who are raped. Example: If you, god forbid, were raped, no one would stop you from speaking your mind of whether you were raped or not prior to a trial.
	__________________ "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it." -Albert Einstein

29th November 2012, 05:22 AM	#3939
eirik Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: norway Posts: 493	Originally Posted by 000063 Take it up with Swedish lawmakers. And lawmakers in any civilized country on earth for that matter. Consent is not a formality in sexual relations.
	__________________ "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it." -Albert Einstein

29th November 2012, 05:52 AM	#3940
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,107	Originally Posted by eirik And lawmakers in any civilized country on earth for that matter. Consent is not a formality in sexual relations. What these people want is a separate law for their favored ones.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

29th November 2012, 08:17 AM	#3941
superfreddy Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 232	This hypocrite dodged questions about Ecuador's freedom of the press. He ended up calling a country that's bending over backwards to keep him out of jail "insignificant". The hell with this mofo! http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...es-ecuador.cnn
superfreddy Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 232

29th November 2012, 08:53 AM	#3942
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,107	Originally Posted by superfreddy This hypocrite dodged questions about Ecuador's freedom of the press. He ended up calling a country that's bending over backwards to keep him out of jail "insignificant". The hell with this mofo! http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...es-ecuador.cnn Some conspiracy theorizing; Is it in Ecuador's interest that this matter is ever resolved? Or not?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

29th November 2012, 08:56 AM	#3943
appalling Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Beyond the reach of your cars. Posts: 320	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Innocent till proven guilty used to be a principle people respected. I can see this right has gone out the window in this thread. If you believe that then the women should be innocent of being called liars by you until proven guilty. You quote something characterizing a Wikileaks promotional event as a party celebrating Assange. They were wikileaks supporters promoting wikileaks. If a woman goes to work the day after something sketchy happens with a superior, it is not proof that nothing happened unless you are willfully ignorant. You quote texts that don't talk about sexual assault as proof that there must not have been sexual assaults. You don't understand principles.

29th November 2012, 09:20 AM	#3944
appalling Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Beyond the reach of your cars. Posts: 320	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz It would be easier to believe these unproved accusations if the girls did not seem so happy after the day after they were 'raped'. You have shown that you have no idea how sexual assault survivors would act. Quote: Also if the Swedish police actually made their mind up about there actually being a shred of evidence or not would help. They seem to think there is no evidence. Their evidence should be examined in a trial. Quote: Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. Aren't you embarrassed in 2012 to link to a 2010 article that claims that consensual sex in Sweden is illegal? The accusation in one case is that she was asleep, and there was no consent. The other accusation involved force. You can say the accusations may be proven wrong, but it is dishonest to say they are accusations of purely consensual sex.

29th November 2012, 09:35 AM	#3945
superfreddy Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 232	Originally Posted by BenBurch Some conspiracy theorizing; Is it in Ecuador's interest that this matter is ever resolved? Or not? I believe Ecuador is in this mess because president Correa is an attention whore. So, no, I don't think Ecuador is really interested in this matter being resolved. That would take it out of the papers.
superfreddy Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 232

29th November 2012, 10:32 AM	#3946
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,107	Originally Posted by superfreddy I believe Ecuador is in this mess because president Correa is an attention whore. So, no, I don't think Ecuador is really interested in this matter being resolved. That would take it out of the papers. Exactly my thinking. And a dying Assange being helped by Ecuador while being cruelly denied hospital facilities by the evil US/UK/Swedish empire seems to be a big win...
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

29th November 2012, 12:37 PM	#3947
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by superfreddy This hypocrite dodged questions about Ecuador's freedom of the press. He ended up calling a country that's bending over backwards to keep him out of jail "insignificant". The hell with this mofo! http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/wor...es-ecuador.cnn Completely reasonable interview. That news anchor was hilarious. You should check a thread I started where he speaks with the President of Equador, they are very good friends and the president is the most popular president Ecuador has ever had with the people. He's very charismatic and very intelligent, he has a doctorate in economics and has really sorted out his countries economy. Julian Assange Interviews Rafael Correa on 'The World Tomorrow'
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Last edited by Zeuzzz; 29th November 2012 at 12:40 PM.

29th November 2012, 12:44 PM	#3948
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by appalling If you believe that then the women should be innocent of being called liars by you until proven guilty. Pretty much anyone without blinders on can look at all the evidence and conclude there girls are not only lying about the rape charges but have no evidence and ulterior motives. I have linked to just a few previously. Apart from John Mekki they were all ignored and other parts of my posts chosen to be replied to by people that disagreed. Pretty funny.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

29th November 2012, 12:46 PM	#3949
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,905	You know I think I'm far to optimistic. I would have thought that after nearly 4000 posts in this thread that any new comer to it would have read at least enough of it to get a grip on the basic facts of the case, but nope, it's like wack-a-rat, the same dead facts get resurrected and argued again and again. It seems that those coming in to support Assange don't even actually know what the actual allegations against him even are. After all this time, that's just sad, you'd think that they'd have at least read the actual court and police documents that are availible rather than just accepting a bunch of blogs as gospel. I guess I expect too much.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

29th November 2012, 12:48 PM	#3950
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Hello Phantom Wolf. Can you -please post these basic facts of the case people keep getting wrong? Since you are complaining about people here you should have a list of these incorrect facts you can help educate us with.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

29th November 2012, 12:48 PM	#3951
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,905	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Pretty much anyone without blinders on can look at all the evidence and conclude there girls are not only lying about the rape charges but have no evidence and ulterior motives. I have linked to just a few previously. Apart from John Mekki they were all ignored and other parts of my posts chosen to be replied to by people that disagreed. Pretty funny. I don't believe that you have looked at the evidence, in fact I know you haven't because if you had you know that you were making a critical error each time you say the underlined bit.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

29th November 2012, 12:49 PM	#3952
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,905	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Hello Phantom Wolf. Can you -please post these basic facts of the case people keep getting wrong? Since you are complaining about people here you should have a list of these incorrect facts you can help educate us with. Well to start with, what are the allegations against Assange?
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

29th November 2012, 12:50 PM	#3953
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	I provided evidence on the last few pages that is court worthy and will no doubt be brought up if Assange has to face court. You have not commented on them. I can list them again if you missed them?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

29th November 2012, 12:52 PM	#3954
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Well to start with, what are the allegations against Assange? No, I want a list from you. I have an idea. Since you are mocking my ignorance you should educate me. This is an educational forum.
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

29th November 2012, 12:56 PM	#3955
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,905	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz No, I want a list from you. I have an idea. Since you are mocking my ignorance you should educate me. This is an educational forum. If you had read the police files and the Court documents you'd have more than "an idea" you would know. As it is the answer has been posted multiple times in this thread. Here_to_learn has posted a entire list of commonly misbelieved things about the case, with links to agreed upon facts and other documents, and has done so multiple times. Try actually reading some of the previous 3900 odd posts.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.