Moderated: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

The issue at hand is that, assuming that allegations against Assange are politically motivated, then it may well be that Assange is not guilty of the things that he is prosecuted for.

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

Quote:

An investigation is useful to determine whether Assange is guoilty or not, only if it is reasonably clear that the prosecution is not politically motivated

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

Quote:

I have never spoke about the "truth"
I have given a list of schoilars and politicians that support the allegation that prosecution against Assange is politically motivated

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

[Watanabe]

Originally Posted by Wudang

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.


Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

No.
You can not determine the truth if the trial and the judge are subjected to pressure from (for example) the Swedish and the American Government

[Watanabe]

Originally Posted by Travis

Which proves what? Nothing more than that there is a list of people, that includes Presidents Lula and Correa, who believe in something that isn't true.

Does not prove.
But there is evidence that the whole allegations may be politically motivated

Originally Posted by TjW

It's the discussion we're having. Because you seem to dismiss the seriousness of the allegations by saying "Oh, they're politically motivated."
If the allegations are true, it doesn't really matter if they're politically motivated or not. People shouldn't be allowed to rape, even if they happen to be Julian Assange. Even if they've embarrassed the U.S. a few years ago.

How do you determine if the allegations are true if the whole prosecution is politically motivated?

Originally Posted by Tolls

Lawyers who do understand international law all agree that it is harder to extradite from Sweden after he's got there than it is from the UK without any move to Sweden.

False.
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-...-about-a-broke

[Captain_Swoop]

Watanabe, Do you have any opinion on why the US didn't extradite him from the UK when they had the chance? The UK even had him in custody for a while.?

I have asked a couple of times but you have never responded.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

You can not determine the truth if the trial and the judge are subjected to pressure from (for example) the Swedish and the American Government

That is of course a hypothetical issue though. So I think it can be safely disregarded.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

But there is evidence that the whole allegations may be politically motivated

Care to reference it?

[BenBurch]

One of the victims speaks (maybe);

http://www.smh.com.au/world/assange-...516-2jpn1.html

Quote:

<SNIP>

One of the two Swedish women who accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes is believed to have written publicly about her ordeal for what is believed to be the first time.

The woman, whose name has not been officially disclosed or published in the Swedish media but has been circulated widely on the internet as one of the Assange accusers, wrote in a blog post that she was "the victim of an assault" three years ago.

Friends of her assailant and others with ulterior motives had "rapidly decided that something was suspicious. That I was lying. That the perpetrator was innocent", she wrote.


<SNIP>

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

Does not prove.
False.
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-...-about-a-broke

Manifestly not false.
"Burnside explained that the Swedish prosecutor visited England in December to obtain the European Arrest Warrant seeking Assange’s extradition to Sweden, but chose not to question him at that time, even though questioning was the sole purpose of the warrant."
(emphasis added)
Blatant ignorance of Swedish law as you would know if you had read this
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-al...ge-extradition

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

No.
You can not determine the truth if the trial and the judge are subjected to pressure from (for example) the Swedish and the American Government

So in your world to get off a prosecution all one has to do is claim that the charges are politically motivated and you should be alled to get off scoot free?

[Watanabe]

Originally Posted by nathan

That is of course a hypothetical issue though. So I think it can be safely disregarded.

If you say so

Originally Posted by nathan

Care to reference it?

I already did several times, I ll do again

The US soldiers who commit crimes in Iraq and were exposed by the leaks were not punished

Originally Posted by Wudang

Manifestly not false.
"Burnside explained that the Swedish prosecutor visited England in December to obtain the European Arrest Warrant seeking Assange’s extradition to Sweden, but chose not to question him at that time, even though questioning was the sole purpose of the warrant."
(emphasis added)
Blatant ignorance of Swedish law as you would know if you had read this
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-al...ge-extradition

Since you are not an expert in Swedish law either ( I assume), how can you tell that the quoted Australian lawyer is wrong while your right-wingish crap news site is right?

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

No.
You can not determine the truth if the trial and the judge are subjected to pressure from (for example) the Swedish and the American Government

So what should happen in your view - who should find out the truth?

Note that Sweden does have systems in place to check if polititians and/or government agencies are acting outside the law, for example http://www.jo.se/en/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committ...ment_of_Sweden)

If JA or his counsel belives that the prosecutor or courts have been subjected to preassure, they can file a complaint. As far as I know, they haven't done this. Actually, as far as I know, anybody can file a complaint.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

False.
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-...-about-a-broke

Nothing there says anything about how the implementing the EAW, and getting Assange to Sweden, actually makes it harder to extradite to the US.

So my point still stands...lawyers who understand how the EAW works realise it is harder to extradite from Sweden under the EAW than from the UK pre-EAW. The former requires the agreement of both Sweden and the UK, the later merely required the agreement of the UK.

You have failed time and again to show that this is false.

And clearly Burnside doesn't have a scooby what he's talking about. The whole "broken condom" thing highlights that quite clearly.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

Since you are not an expert in Swedish law either ( I assume), how can you tell that the quoted Australian lawyer is wrong while your right-wingish crap news site is right?

Because if you'd followed the links in the article I keep posting you'd find it leading to actual experts in Swedish law. And again New Statesman is centre-left, it's not right-wing just because it supports womens rights.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

The US soldiers who commit crimes in Iraq and were exposed by the leaks were not punished

US soldiers in Iraq are not subject to Swedish, UK or European law.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

If you say so

glad you agree.

Quote:

I already did several times, I ll do again

no, you have not.

Quote:

The US soldiers who commit crimes in Iraq and were exposed by the leaks were not punished

Non sequiteur.

So, still no evidence for your claims.

[Watanabe]

Originally Posted by Tolls

Nothing there says anything about how the implementing the EAW, and getting Assange to Sweden, actually makes it harder to extradite to the US.

So my point still stands...lawyers who understand how the EAW works realise it is harder to extradite from Sweden under the EAW than from the UK pre-EAW. The former requires the agreement of both Sweden and the UK, the later merely required the agreement of the UK.

You have failed time and again to show that this is false.

And clearly Burnside doesn't have a scooby what he's talking about. The whole "broken condom" thing highlights that quite clearly.

The Australian lawyer I have quoted is skeptic that "it is all about a broken condom".
Assuming that he is not stupid, he already knows what you are stating above.
On which grounds do you think he does not understand nothing about "how the EAW works"?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

I already did several times, I ll do again

The US soldiers who commit crimes in Iraq and were exposed by the leaks were not punished

Totally irrelevant.

Firstly US Soldiers are not under the jurisdiction of the Swedish Courts and so Sweden has no say if they are charged or not. Assange is accused of breaking Swedish Law in Sweden, something that the Swedish Justice System can act on.

Secondly, there is no requirement for one justice system to not bring charges to bear against someone because a different justice system didn't bring worse charges against someone else.

Thirdly, those that actually can bring charges against those US Soldiers have seen the footage and stated that they did not commit a War Crime, which is why there has been no charges brought.

For the record, if civilians are killed on a battlefield because they are mistaken for insurgents, then the fault actually lies with the insurgents who aren't wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from the surrounding civilians not the soldiers who make the mistake.

Personally I think that the helicopter crew should have watched the vehicle and directed ground troops to it for capture, but legally, the ones responsible for the killings were the insurgents, just as a bank robber is responsible for a teller's death during a robbery, even if she was shot by a cop.

Quote:

Since you are not an expert in Swedish law either ( I assume), how can you tell that the quoted Australian lawyer is wrong while your right-wingish crap news site is right?

Under UK law the Swedish prosecutors cannot question Assange in the UK. They can send an application with a request for him to be questioned by police in the UK, part of which is a list of questions they would like to be asked.

If that is accepted (which it might not be) and acted on (in due course based on resources available) they might be allowed (totally at Scotland Yard's discretion) to watch the interview as a UK police officer asks the questions provided to them. They cannot intervene or ask further questions themselves. It is illegal for any person who is not a sworn UK police officer to conduct or partake in a police interview in the UK.

This is black and white in UK law, it has even been posted in this thread a number of pages back, and yet the pro-Assange still ask why the Swedish Prosecutor didn't do it. It's got to the same point of Pro-Hoaxers asking why there are no stars in the Apollo photos.

[nathan]

[quote=Watanabe;9229500]

Quote:

Assuming that he is not stupid, he already knows what you are stating above.

Incorrect. Non-stupid people can be ignorant.

Quote:

On which grounds do you think he does not understand nothing about "how the EAW works"?

What exactly does he claim about the EAW?

If it's the claim that the EAW is just for interviewing JA, then Wudung has already addressed that point. And you'd know it, if indeed you have read the David Green article you claim to have read -- you know, the one that's been cited several times in this thread, and several times to you. If you think David Green is incorrect, what exactly do you think he is wrong about?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

The Australian lawyer I have quoted is skeptic that "it is all about a broken condom".

But it's not "all about a broken condom" it has never been "all about a broken condom" and for someone to clam to be sceptical because they don't think it is "all about a broken condom" clearly shows that they don't actually know what it is about since it's not and never has been about that and anyone that actually knows the case knows that. There is no reason to be sceptical about it being "all about a broken condom" because it never was. It's like saying you are sceptical that the sky is purple with orange stripes.

[Watanabe]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

So what should happen in your view - who should find out the truth?

If Governments were really after the truth it is clear that they would prosecute all the crimes shown in the leaks, not just the person who helped the leaks come out

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Note that Sweden does have systems in place to check if polititians and/or government agencies are acting outside the law, for example http://www.jo.se/en/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committ...ment_of_Sweden)

If JA or his counsel belives that the prosecutor or courts have been subjected to preassure, they can file a complaint. As far as I know, they haven't done this. Actually, as far as I know, anybody can file a complaint.

And the system is controlled by the Swesdish Government which is the one suspected to go after Assange because of the leaks.

Originally Posted by Wudang

Because if you'd followed the links in the article I keep posting you'd find it leading to actual experts in Swedish law. And again New Statesman is centre-left, it's not right-wing just because it supports womens rights.

So you are claiming that we should believe the New Statesman as they support women rights?
Ridiculous

What do women rights have to do with Assange?

Originally Posted by Tolls

Nothing there says anything about how the implementing the EAW, and getting Assange to Sweden, actually makes it harder to extradite to the US.

So my point still stands...lawyers who understand how the EAW works realise it is harder to extradite from Sweden under the EAW than from the UK pre-EAW. The former requires the agreement of both Sweden and the UK, the later merely required the agreement of the UK.

You have failed time and again to show that this is false.

Never claimed that it is

Originally Posted by Tolls

And clearly Burnside doesn't have a scooby what he's talking about. The whole "broken condom" thing highlights that quite clearly.

I do not think you are in a position to say this, do you?

Originally Posted by Wudang

US soldiers in Iraq are not subject to Swedish, UK or European law.

Sweden is an ally of the US and if they wanted they could have protested for the crimes.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Totally irrelevant.

Completely relevant

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Firstly US Soldiers are not under the jurisdiction of the Swedish Courts and so Sweden has no say if they are charged or not. Assange is accused of breaking Swedish Law in Sweden, something that the Swedish Justice System can act on.

Completely irrelevant.
Sweden is an ally of the US
Sweden could have protested

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Secondly, there is no requirement for one justice system to not bring charges to bear against someone because a different justice system didn't bring worse charges against someone else.

There is the moral requirement

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Thirdly, those that actually can bring charges against those US Soldiers have seen the footage and stated that they did not commit a War Crime, which is why there has been no charges brought.

Ridiculous.
They did as shooting to civilians is a crime

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

For the record, if civilians are killed on a battlefield because they are
Under UK law the Swedish prosecutors cannot question Assange in the UK. They can send an application with a request for him to be questioned by police in the UK, part of which is a list of questions they would like to be asked.

If that is accepted (which it might not be) and acted on (in due course based on resources available) they might be allowed (totally at Scotland Yard's discretion) to watch the interview as a UK police officer asks the questions provided to them. They cannot intervene or ask further questions themselves. It is illegal for any person who is not a sworn UK police officer to conduct or partake in a police interview in the UK.

This is black and white in UK law, it has even been posted in this thread a number of pages back, and yet the pro-Assange still ask why the Swedish Prosecutor didn't do it. It's got to the same point of Pro-Hoaxers asking why there are no stars in the Apollo photos.

Since when Governments care about what is written in the laws?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

No.
You can not determine the truth if the trial and the judge are subjected to pressure from (for example) the Swedish and the American Government

Except you have no evidence that they would be.

Originally Posted by Watanabe

I already did several times, I ll do again

The US soldiers who commit crimes in Iraq and were exposed by the leaks were not punished

This is what is called a non-sequitur. What the United States does or does not do in any particular instance has nothing to do with Swedish intentions with Assange. Without further evidence, the connection is only in your imagination.

[Watanabe]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Except you have no evidence that they would be.

This is what is called a non-sequitur. What the United States does or does not do in any particular instance has nothing to do with Swedish intentions with Assange. Without further evidence, the connection is only in your imagination.

You say this as you trust very naively the legal system of both Sweden and the US.
You are saying that "has nothing to do".
How do you know that it has nothing to do?
Why do you trust Governments so naively?

Do you really it is all abut a broken condom?
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-...-about-a-broke

Once again here is the evidence:
if the Swedish Government were really after the truth and against crimes, why they did not produce a formal complain when her ally the US had some of their soldiers commit atrocities?
Why they did not severe their military alliance or at least issue a strong complain when no WMDs were found in Iraq?
If they did not, it means that they are not after justice and truth and it is all politics, therefore the suspect that they are after Assange, who has commit way minor crimes in comparison, for the leaks and not for the rapes, stands.

If you really believe wwhat your Governments tell you no matter what, then I have a bridge in Sahara desert to sell you.
Good price.

[TjW]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

If Governments were really after the truth it is clear that they would prosecute all the crimes shown in the leaks, not just the person who helped the leaks come out

This is a "tu quoque" argument. I get this kind of whine from my kids all the time when they're about to be punished. "Well, my sister did it and got away with it." It doesn't work for them, either.

You're confusing what ideally ought to be with what is. Ideally, every wrongdoing would be investigated and every wrongdoer punished. I don't think you'll find anyone to argue against how that is what ought to happen.

In the real world, not every wrongdoer is brought to justice. This is sad, but the real world will get further away from the ideal if we start saying: "Well, that guy didn't get brought to justice, so we shouldn't allow this guy to be brought to justice." Because now, not only does that guy get away with it, but so does this guy, and a third, other guy, can say, "Well, they didn't get brought to justice, so why should I? And indeed, if we follow this logic why should he? Why should anyone face justice as long as anyone at all does not?
Mind you, that no one should face justice as long as anyone else doesn't isn't my argument, or any reasonable person's argument, because we don't follow that logic. We say it is a tu quoque fallacy, see that it leads us away from from our desired ideal of everyone facing justice, and reject it.


But let's ignore for the moment the incredible disconnect between any crimes revealed by the leaks and Assange's alleged behavior with women.

Could you be a little more specific? What crimes revealed in the leaks should Sweden be prosecuting, before it can legitimately, in your view, prosecute Assange as well?

One of the embarrassing things revealed in the leaks was that "the corruption among Ecuadorian National Police officers is widespread and well-known." Should Sweden have to attempt prosecution of these corrupt officers before prosecuting Assange? I don't see any way for them to do that. The alleged crimes were out of their jurisdiction. Sweden can't be reasonably expected to prosecute things that happened half a world away in Ecuador, or in Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter.

Note I'm not arguing that Ecuadorian police should be prosecuted by Sweden. I'm merely pointing out the idiocy of the position that any alleged crimes exposed by Wikileaks must be prosecuted before Assange can be legitimately prosecuted.

But it's not at all unreasonable for Sweden to prosecute alleged crimes against its citizens by foreign visitors. I think they would be dishonest if they didn't, regardless of who the foreign visitors are.

[Democracy Simulator]

Ah, the Assange thread trundles on...

Some new info - Assange has made a 'subject access request' to GCHQ in Cheltenham and they have responded by giving him the details of messages sent between GCHQ employees:

Quote:

"We can confirm that GCHQ responded formally to the subject who made the request. The disclosed material includes personal comments between some members of staff and do not reflect GCHQ's policies or views in any way.

This is one of the messages that Assange claims came from that released material:

Quote:

A message from September 2012, read out by Assange, apparently says: "They are trying to arrest him on suspicion of XYZ … It is definitely a fit-up… Their timings are too convenient right after Cablegate."

Article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013...es-extradition

Edited by Gaspode:

Edited for moderated thread.

If true, a bit embarrassing for GCHQ and the British government I suppose; but not exactly a thunderbolt.

[nathan]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

And the system is controlled by the Swesdish Government which is the one suspected to go after Assange because of the leaks.

In post 4850 you agreed that this hypothetical issue could be disregarded. Why are you changing your position (again?). What new evidence has come to light since Friday?

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

So you are claiming that we should believe the New Statesman as they support women rights?
Ridiculous

The sentence was " it's not right-wing just because it supports womens rights".

Quote:

What do women rights have to do with Assange?

And you call the New Statesman right-wing? A fundamental womans' right is integrity of her own body. Something your precious Assange appears not to believe in.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

The Australian lawyer I have quoted is skeptic that "it is all about a broken condom".
Assuming that he is not stupid, he already knows what you are stating above.
On which grounds do you think he does not understand nothing about "how the EAW works"?

My whole line has been that it is harder to extradite Assange from Sweden once he's there, because of how an EAW works, than from the UK.

I pointed out that all lawyers who understand how this works agree.

And you posted an article that had nothing to do with it...hardly my fault you don't understand what you're reading.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

If Governments were really after the truth it is clear that they would prosecute all the crimes shown in the leaks, not just the person who helped the leaks come out

But now I was talking about the subject of this thread - the truth about JA and the women.

So again, in your view - who should be trusted to find out the truth about those allegations, and how?

Originally Posted by Watanabe

And the system is controlled by the Swesdish Government which is the after Assange because of the leaks.

This seems to be a "it's turtles all the way down"-type of argument.

From how I read it, the argument is dependent on a couple of conclusions you seem to have made:

1. JA is not guilty
2. Swedish is prosecuting JA for political reasons
3. Everybody in Swedish government services are in on this

Now, if this is not your position, maybe you could tell us who in your view are in on it, or at least has to be in on it for this conspiracy to work out.

[Captain_Swoop]

Watanabe, I still don't see you comment on why the USA didn't just extradite him direct from the UK while they had the chance?
Why go to all the trouble the extradition to Sweden first?

[ArmillarySphere]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

Once again here is the evidence:
if the Swedish Government were really after the truth and against crimes, why they did not produce a formal complain when her ally the US had some of their soldiers commit atrocities?
Why they did not severe their military alliance or at least issue a strong complain when no WMDs were found in Iraq?

It is a little difficult to sever a military alliance you never entered into in the first place. Sweden has been militarily neutral since the Napoleonic wars.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Watanabe

If Governments were really after the truth it is clear that they would prosecute all the crimes shown in the leaks, not just the person who helped the leaks come out

Except that the crimes are only in your own head.

Quote:

Sweden is an ally of the US and if they wanted they could have protested for the crimes.

The was no crime.

Quote:

Completely relevant

No, the non-prosecution for a non-crime by soldiers from a country other than Sweden has zero to do with Sweden wanting to prosecute Assange for allegedly committing a crime in Sweden. If you can't understand this basic fact then we are going nowhere fast.

Quote:

Completely irrelevant.
Sweden is an ally of the US
Sweden could have protested

Protested about what? The US not prosecuting soldiers for not committing a crime?

Quote:

There is the moral requirement

So all countries should now stop their courts from doing anything because some other country hasn't prosecuted someone else? That's what you are saying.

Quote:

Ridiculous.
They did as shooting to civilians is a crime

No it's not ridiculous, it's the law. Shooting civilians during a military engagement is not always a crime no matter how much you want it to be. It is a crime to deliberately shoot civilians who you have identified as civilians. That is not what occurred in this case.

The law on this is pretty simple. ALL armed forces must be in uniform, must have visible insignia, and must not operate in a way to deliberately endanger civilians. The militants broke the law by dressing like civilians and operating in civilian areas, thus putting them in danger. They are the ones that put the civilians in the line of fire, they are the ones that are responsible. It's that simple.

In this case the militants were dropped off by a van that was similar to the one that arrived shortly after the firing and attempted to evacuate the militants. The helicopter crew had no way of determining civilian from militant. Nor did they have any way of determining who in the group was militant and who was a reporter. The militants created this confusion deliberately, hiding in the general population against the rules of war. They were the ones breaking the law, and the deaths that resulted were entirely their fault. You might not like that, but it is what the International Laws of War say, and that is what determines if a crime occurred or not. The Law says it didn't.

Quote:

Since when Governments care about what is written in the laws?

You better hope that they do, else you have no security at all. What stops your government taking your house and belongings without compensation? What stops the police kicking in your door and searching your home for no reason? What stops the Tax department draining your bank accounts? What stops the Government having you arrested and thrown into jail if not the Law?

Originally Posted by Watanabe

You say this as you trust very naively the legal system of both Sweden and the US.

So we should let out all the people currently held in jail because you don't trust the legal system?

Quote:

You are saying that "has nothing to do".
How do you know that it has nothing to do?
Why do you trust Governments so naively?

It has zero to do with trusting governments, it has to do with evidence, and so far not one person who has given an opinion that the prosecution is political has been able to back up that opinion with any solid evidence that can be investigated. A million opinions equals nothing but speculation, and speculation is worthless. Give us something real and not just a bunch of opinions.

Quote:

Do you really it is all abut a broken condom?
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-...-about-a-broke

We have been over this multiple times, you don't acknowledge it, you don't change your mind on it, you don't even seem to understand it.

Let me say it again. The allegations have nothing to do with a broken condom.

Let me say it again so you understand. The allegations have nothing to do with a broken condom.

The allegations are that Assange took advantage of woman's condition to start sexual intercourse with her in a way that he knew she had already stated was unacceptable. You even agreed that the scenario of which Assange is accused would be rape.

Let me say it again so you understand. The allegations have nothing to do with a broken condom. They have to do with Assange committing a rape.

Quote:

Once again here is the evidence:

Sadly no, what you are about to do is give us a heap of opinion. Opinion is not evidence.

Quote:

if the Swedish Government were really after the truth and against crimes, why they did not produce a formal complain when her ally the US had some of their soldiers commit atrocities?

Opinion and irrelevant and incorrect opinion at that

Quote:

Why they did not severe their military alliance or at least issue a strong complain when no WMDs were found in Iraq?

Not even opinion, this is a question. Opinions aren't evidence and questions certainly aren't. I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary and look up the word "evidence" because you keep using this word and I know it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Quote:

If they did not, it means that they are not after justice and truth and it is all politics, therefore the suspect that they are after Assange, who has commit way minor crimes in comparison, for the leaks and not for the rapes, stands.

Opinion, jumping to conclusions, speculation at its worst, apart from that, it’s also a total non-sequencer.

Quote:

If you really believe wwhat your Governments tell you no matter what, then I have a bridge in Sahara desert to sell you.
Good price.

Did you believe your Government when they told you that you had paid your taxes last year?

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator

If true, a bit embarrassing for GCHQ and the British government I suppose; but not exactly a thunderbolt.

Yes, but then again I know a couple of people at GCHQ and, well, they're people.
I'm surprised there was only one message that thought this...in fact, that he only managed to dig one out that implies a "fit up" speaks volumes in my mind. The idea that people working there would be any different a mix from any other group is odd, frankly. Consequently there are going to be as many CTists there as anywhere else. Hell, possibly more.

The other one, about him being a fool, is nice, though.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Watanabe, I still don't see you comment on why the USA didn't just extradite him direct from the UK while they had the chance?
Why go to all the trouble the extradition to Sweden first?

And why is he still alive if we want him that desperately?