Julian Assange

[abdoujaparov]

Well, I'll just end by saying that an awfully large number of people have decided that he is guilty and that (and I do not know you, can't speak for your beliefs or views) largely those people seem to be the same ones arguing for cutting benefits, less regulation of the very people we cannot trust and some truly nasty views regarding immigrants, the disabled and the poor.

When I see those people putting so much faith in his guilt so vehemently and frequently it only helps to enforce my view that this is a smear. As I say, neither of us can be proven right or wrong today, we both have only speculation and opinion to work with.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Fascinating observation. How have most of us heard of Wikileaks? Through the very media that you say we cannot trust.

[Spindles]

And be careful about implying that I might be some kind of right wing apologist for the state...I am liable to get very cross

Edited August 20, 2012 by Spindles

[grumpyhack]

Presumably the main stream media had no option other than to tell us about Wikileaks because with the net the way it is we'd have found out anyway. And then questions would have been asked why the media hadn't told us.

[Spindles]

..and that is likely to be our saving grace. I don't think anyone would suggest that every journalist at every organisation is in on some global conspiracy led by a cabal of men in a darkened room. What is being suggested is that some very rich and powerful people have control of some of the largest news organisations on the planet and they are dictating the agenda, that by doing so they are ensuring that we hear about what they want us to hear about and that mass opinion is controlled as a result. It has become clear that some of these people have senior police, politicians and captains of industry in their pocket/on their side. Wikileaks (and other sites the mainstream media have not told you about, such as anonymous analytics) are part of a fight to try and change that and, through evidence, catch them out when they lie, or cheat.

The Daily Mail has put an awful lot of column inches and front pages into showing us that some people of a certain religion/skin colour have been caught as benefit cheats, with the express purpose of convincing us that all such people are doing this. The ONS estimates that 0.7% of the benefit bill is lost to fraud, but ask the man on the street for an estimate and the figure would be much higher. This is just one paper, there are more obvious examples with much more far reaching power to convince, when what they are convincing us is untrue/downright evil I think it is right to try and provide factual evidence to show they are lying and more importantly why.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

..and that is likely to be our saving grace. I don't think anyone would suggest that every journalist at every organisation is in on some global conspiracy led by a cabal of men in a darkened room. What is being suggested is that some very rich and powerful people have control of some of the largest news organisations on the planet and they are dictating the agenda, that by doing so they are ensuring that we hear about what they want us to hear about and that mass opinion is controlled as a result. It has become clear that some of these people have senior police, politicians and captains of industry in their pocket/on their side. Wikileaks (and other sites the mainstream media have not told you about, such as anonymous analytics) are part of a fight to try and change that and, through evidence, catch them out when they lie, or cheat.

The Daily Mail has put an awful lot of column inches and front pages into showing us that some people of a certain religion/skin colour have been caught as benefit cheats, with the express purpose of convincing us that all such people are doing this. The ONS estimates that 0.7% of the benefit bill is lost to fraud, but ask the man on the street for an estimate and the figure would be much higher. This is just one paper, there are more obvious examples with much more far reaching power to convince, when what they are convincing us is untrue/downright evil I think it is right to try and provide factual evidence to show they are lying and more importantly why.

[abdoujaparov]

..and that is likely to be our saving grace. I don't think anyone would suggest that every journalist at every organisation is in on some global conspiracy led by a cabal of men in a darkened room. What is being suggested is that some very rich and powerful people have control of some of the largest news organisations on the planet and they are dictating the agenda, that by doing so they are ensuring that we hear about what they want us to hear about and that mass opinion is controlled as a result. It has become clear that some of these people have senior police, politicians and captains of industry in their pocket/on their side. Wikileaks (and other sites the mainstream media have not told you about, such as anonymous analytics) are part of a fight to try and change that and, through evidence, catch them out when they lie, or cheat.

The Daily Mail has put an awful lot of column inches and front pages into showing us that some people of a certain religion/skin colour have been caught as benefit cheats, with the express purpose of convincing us that all such people are doing this. The ONS estimates that 0.7% of the benefit bill is lost to fraud, but ask the man on the street for an estimate and the figure would be much higher. This is just one paper, there are more obvious examples with much more far reaching power to convince, when what they are convincing us is untrue/downright evil I think it is right to try and provide factual evidence to show they are lying and more importantly why.

[Spindles]

Yeah, that is why I would prefer he went to Sweden also, as I say, then the truth would out.

In the end it is going to, at least that is something. I'm someone who is never afraid to admit when I was wrong (I voted for Tony Blair, I voted for Nick Clegg, clearly I make mistakes, sometimes because there is a total absence of a choice that can be made that is not a mistake in one form or antoher) but mostly, as I say, I've been proven right by history in what I am willing to post on the internet and when posting always do so in the firm knowledge that everything I have said has become a matter of record.

I'm certainly not stating I'm a fan of Assange, just a supporter of the organisation he represents and cynical about the reasons behind these accusations and the potential outcome.

Thanks for keeping it civil, it's not always possible for some and all too often a political discussion on an internet forum can dissolve into either insult or someone looking to find insult.

[Alcatraz]

George Galloway has gone bat shit crazy over this. From about 22:30, uggggggggggggh

[metallimuse]

Who does that in the morning?I'm sure any of my 'conquests' would of slapped me if they woke up to find me on the job already

[t8yman]

I'm the last person to believe the mainstream "conspiracy theorists" but this just looks like a massive conspiracy to get him to the US, and try him in a "special" court.

My understanding of the charge alleged against him relates to 2 women who consented to having sex with him, but the dispute arose with regards to him not wearing a condom when he had said he would? I'm prepared to be corrected on that if anyone knows better?

[eFestivals]

My understanding of the charge alleged against him relates to 2 women who consented to having sex with him, but the dispute arose with regards to him not wearing a condom when he had said he would? I'm prepared to be corrected on that if anyone knows better?

there's a little more to it than that. It includes those women getting to know of the others existence and Assange having sex with both - which gives the suggestion that in the mix is some bitterness that they each weren't exclusive with him (and the no-condoms part is relevant with that).

[zahidf]

I think the allegations are real, but given a lot more weight to get him in jail for soemthing.

The thing is, Sweden isn't a lot more likely to extradite than the UK. If anything, it seems more a smear campaign, and the US are pushing for him to be in jail rather than in the US.

[Purple Monkey]

there is no evidence, not a jot, that the fact that he is facing accusations of sex offences in Sweden is remotely linked to any future desire on the part of the US to extradite him. All there is is supposition and conspiracy. Conspiracy which flies in the face of the fact that if the US wanted badly enough to extradite him, they could do it more easily from the UK. If the US prosecuting authorities wanted him, they could have sought his extradition from the UK. As I've said before, staging a complex conspiracy (with all the connected risk of people talking) was just not necessary to achieve their aims. Everything else is just window dressing....

It is possible that, despite Assange doing a service in leaking stuff the US would rather stay hidden, he is also not a very nice person who takes advantage of women sexually....

Edited August 21, 2012 by Purple Monkey

[eFestivals]

And thats rape ?

I've far from followed things closely, but as far as I'm aware nothing of the charges he's up for is 'rape' in the way that it would be considered within UK law.

I believe it's the case that it becomes "rape" within Swedish law because it's a consensual sex act which includes something non-consensual within it - him not wearing a condom &/or him having sex while the woman is supposedly asleep (which she didn't object to, just the fact of her being asleep makes it non-consensual).

-------------------

From stuff i've read about Assange, he's what might be regarded as a dirty dog, a serial shagger, perhaps even as much as 'a sexual predator'. This is supposedly quite well documented about him.

Likewise, it was well documented that the French guy who used to head the IMF was also a serial shagger.

If/when a power want to "take someone down" - and particularly in a democracy - then it's very normal to use their own traits against them. The chance of a set-up being exposed is lessened by doing that.

I'm firmly on the fence as to whether there was a set-up for either of these people, but the circumstances around both cases certainly don't put that possibility of there having been a set-up to bed. At the end of the day, only those accused and their supposed victims know the truth of things - and from what I've read it appears to be the case that at least one of the women involved with Assange in Sweden doesn't feel that a crime has been committed against her (tho that doesn't mean that one definitely wasn't).

[t8yman]

there's a little more to it than that. It includes those women getting to know of the others existence and Assange having sex with both - which gives the suggestion that in the mix is some bitterness that they each weren't exclusive with him (and the no-condoms part is relevant with that).

[rug568]

I just find it incredibly unlikely that Hague would threaten to invade the Ecuadorian Embassy on a sexual assault charge.

[Spindles]

I thought the event in question was on one night, in one house/hotel room and that both women were present at the same time?

I guess I need to read into the allegation a little more intently.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Spindles

[Purple Monkey]

Associating Assange with the word 'rape' has already done a lot of damage. Branding, got to love it.

[Spindles]

One charge is of rape, one is of molestation. The police who originally dealt with the complaint from the 2 women interviewed Assange and then stated "I do not believe he has raped anyone" before the charges were reinstated from above.

I am no expert on Swedish law, but one of the points that has been made is that at least part of this is muddied by differences in the legal definitions between the 2 nations and that the one thing that it is clear is that Julian Assange is NOT being accused of having forcibly had sex with someone against their will using violence, if that is the definition of rape that you use.

It is rape if you wake up horny and try to get it on with your missus, but she is not in the mood and you carry on anyway, even if you do not penetrate, it is molestation if she says no so you jerk off and your semen lands on her. The details are not known to us, but the rumour mill seems to be working overtime.

[Spindles]

An interesting read, I had certainly not seen that level of detail, which is well above that published by the BBC and other news sources. The concluding 3 paragraphs illustrate why I feel the way I do and what I personally expect to be the outcome.

[abdoujaparov]

Well we have precedent... Lots of examples of people being but on jumped up lesser charges to aid in their extradition for bigger issues. They where rolling through them yesterday on five live.

[eFestivals]

I thought the event in question was on one night, in one house/hotel room and that both women were present at the same time?

I guess I need to read into the allegation a little more intently.

I thought that it happened over consequtive nights, where one of the women put him up on each night, and that they only came to know of the other's existence after the events.

But as there's so much comment and speculation around the whole thing, I don't doubt the possibility that I have it wrong.

[abdoujaparov]

An interesting read, I had certainly not seen that level of detail, which is well above that published by the BBC and other news sources. The concluding 3 paragraphs illustrate why I feel the way I do and what I personally expect to be the outcome.

[Spindles]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

There are a number of examples in this article here, which would not be known about, or at the very least, would not be able to be proved, were it not for the release of diplomatic cables through wikileaks. It would still be considered fanciful to believe that such things happen.