UN rules in favour of Assange

[Husar]

Well, you missed linking your outrage with what has actually happened. But it was a good try I suppose.

This might surprise our local German, but the police and prosecutor is required to investigate and prosecute a crime if they discover that one has been committed. This even includes when the rapist is an international super star who has pissed off the US.

You might also want to choose more credible sources for your claims, unless we shall start discussing if Obama is American based on what is posted on birther websites.

You mean I should link to one of the British, state-obeying falsepapers that omit the Swedish government changing the prosecutor two times until they found one who is ready to pretend a crime actually happened?

This may surprise you but your second paragraph has nothing to do with what I quoted.

As for credible sources, show me one that is as detailed about the events as the one I linked but disagrees about the prosecutor being changed several times. Then we can talk about which one is more credible and I might even agree with you. Just derailing my source based on sources that give a very superficial overview of the events (or just your word) is hardly helpful.

[Snowhobbit]

It is because you gave insufficient information on where you come from. If you did, you would learn a lot about the peculiarities of cognitive processes symtomatic of the natives and of the whole region to boot.

Hey man, it's not your fault you were raised in a Ukrainian culture, you can fight it!

From Britain, not from Sweden, iirc.

USA and Sweden have an extradition treaty, so the USA has to only charge him for hacking and poof, Sweden is obligated to extradite him.

Sweden can refuse, theoretically, citing that real reason is not some cyber crime or theft but a political crime, and legally refuse to extradite him, but Swedish record of "loosely" interpreting laws when under US pressure is not that great, like in 2002 or during police raid of The Pirate Bay servers.

Well here's the funny thing about a EAW, once Sweden is done with him then we are obliged to send him back as soon as possible to UK. This is quite crystal clear from the treaties which are present. Additionally he would theoretically face the death penalty in the US right? Or otherwise very lengthy unproportional jail time? In which case again there is grounds to not extradite him. Plus unlike the terror brothers, the media light is shining quite brightly on him.

That is up to him and the country he requested asylum from. A person can be persecuted by being prosecuted.



No, Ecuador is, and we don't know the reason. Is it technical, is it legal? My google fu failed me, so if anyone has a link to the statement explaining why they declined, I'd like to read it.



No it isn't. If I sue you, the court is obliged to inform you of the proceedings and offer you the chance tell your side of the story and prepare a defence. If you refuse to do so, it is not mine or the court's problem. Assange has appointed legal counsel who represent him in this case so the prosecutor could have informed them of the "their side of the story". Also, there's this thing called the mail. Julian Assange, Ecuador embassy, 3 Hans Crescent, Knightsbridge, London, UK.



It is a complete bollox that they have to interview him. What if he was detained in Sweden and chose to defend himself by being silent? No one can force him to talk, either at the interview or at the trial. Would they drop the case then? Well, we tried to interview him but he refused to say anything.

So, Mr. Northern Lawyer, your case, like theirs, is paper thin.



Not Assange. You're acting like he's the ruler of Ecuador.



1. Really? I don't see it that way.
2. Let's say he is innocent for the moment and that he did receive a text message from a woman he supposedly raped telling him the police twisted her story. Would he really need to be mentally ill to fear he's being persecuted?
3. Possible, but more far fetched. Why would he agree to an interview at any time, then? If the evidence is so overwhelming, why wasn't he charged and tried in absentia already?

You only have two scenarios. He is either guilty or innocent. His behaviour has been more consistent with the latter, so if we assume he is innocent, he's behaviour so far has been perfectly rational. If we assume he is guilty and that the prosecutor has enough evidence to think that, why wasn't he charged and/or tried in absentia and why wasn't every effort taken to interview him, so they can at least say "look we've been trying to interview him for four years, and he's been refusing for four years."

Well no, it is also up to international law, but we all know Assange is beyond such petty things as law.
As we can be sure, Assange never has any influence on whether Assange participates in an interview, I am sure he has been banned by the embassy to speak to the prosecution and would jump at the chance if only he could, angel that he is. I don't have a link to that and I presume it would be in Spanish, if someone else finds a statement that would of course be interesting to read. I would expect it to be full of finger pointing.

That is not how criminal cases work. But by all means lets tear up our entire judicial system for the sake a chicken-shit rapist. If they interview him and he chooses to remain silent, and even cover his ears, that is fine by the law. The main thing is that he has been given the full treatment that the law dictates, much more than simply paper thin.

I presume that Assange is a grown man with the full access to his vocal facilities. Or do his vocal cords only function when he gets permission from Ecuador? He should probably get examined by a doctor then.

You are right, the lawyers probably did not lie to him, though their statements in public would lead you to think otherwise.
Yes, because he is not being prosecuted, not persecuted, by a banana republic. He has had two supreme courts telling him that enough is enough, but he is too insane to listen.
Has he agreed to an interview at any time? Currently he is the one who is saying no to an interview? He cannot be charged in absentia and he most certainly cannot be tried in absentia, that would truly make the legal systems a shamble and turn us into a banana republic. Seriously, can you be tried in criminal cases and sent to jail in absentia in Serbia?!

I agree, it is binary, he is either guilty or innocent. If he was innocent he would presumably prefer proving that in court rather than spend 10 years of his life in an Embassy. His behaviour is entirely consistent with a guilty man refusing to face justice.

[Snowhobbit]

You mean I should link to one of the British, state-obeying falsepapers that omit the Swedish government changing the prosecutor two times until they found one who is ready to pretend a crime actually happened?

This may surprise you but your second paragraph has nothing to do with what I quoted.

As for credible sources, show me one that is as detailed about the events as the one I linked but disagrees about the prosecutor being changed several times. Then we can talk about which one is more credible and I might even agree with you. Just derailing my source based on sources that give a very superficial overview of the events (or just your word) is hardly helpful.

Why don't we discuss abortion using a website like Abortion is murder? Or maybe right-wing ideologies based on Northfront or whatever that crap is called? How about a gun debate based on NRA alone? Or maybe lets discuss Brexit using only European Union websites?

[Husar]

Why don't we discuss abortion using a website like Abortion is murder? Or maybe right-wing ideologies based on Northfront or whatever that crap is called? How about a gun debate based on NRA alone? Or maybe lets discuss Brexit using only European Union websites?

So you have nothing?

[Snowhobbit]

So you have nothing?

I believe I provided multiple quotes from cites not named "assangeisarapist.com" or equivalent. Did you skip the classes on critiquing your own sources in school?

[Husar]

I believe I provided multiple quotes from cites not named "assangeisarapist.com" or equivalent. Did you skip the classes on critiquing your own sources in school?

How many of them explained why the rape charges were at first discarded by a prosecutor or two for being irrelevant and then picked up again by another?

[Snowhobbit]

How many of them explained why the rape charges were at first discarded by a prosecutor or two for being irrelevant and then picked up again by another?

For that you are free to read the statements by the prosecutor. To put it simply, either new evidence was presented, or the evidence present was interpreted as likely to result in a conviction. Or you can of course believe that the US government decides how the Swedish prosecution works. Of course that puts you in the same class of people as those who believe "The Jews" rule the world and are out to eradicate the Aryan race.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

For that you are free to read the statements by the prosecutor. To put it simply, either new evidence was presented, or the evidence present was interpreted as likely to result in a conviction. Or you can of course believe that the US government decides how the Swedish prosecution works. Of course that puts you in the same class of people as those who believe "The Jews" rule the world and are out to eradicate the Aryan race.

So...you have nothing then (given that the best you can come up with is an either/or possibility for what the prosecutor might have said - so no actual evidence of what the prosecutor has said, or that such statements are available)...except the usual (illogical) ad-hominem hyperbole and misplaced hubris.

[Snowhobbit]

So...you have nothing then (given that the best you can come up with is an either/or possibility for what the prosecutor might have said - so no actual evidence of what the prosecutor has said, or that such statements are available)...except the usual (illogical) ad-hominem hyperbole and misplaced hubris.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not the one claiming we are being ruled from the Lizard people on the moon.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not the one claiming we are being ruled from the Lizard people on the moon.

Oddly...nobody has claimed anything about Lizard people on the moon,did you post this is the wrong thread? Any argument, if it is to be taken seriously, requires a framework of evidence. You have so far offered nothing of any value. Whenever you are asked for material supporting your position you have nothing, you just jump off into some whacked out notion of what you think the question means ....as opposed to it being a request for some corroboration of your position.

So...your argument cannot be taken seriously. You have nothing of any value to say on the issue and. You have made, by your own machinations, the position that you hold simply laughable. I am sure that is not what you intended...but maybe I'm wrong.Maybe you are actually a very clever satirist.

[Greyblades]

You mean I should link to one of the British, state-obeying falsepapers that omit the Swedish government changing the prosecutor two times until they found one who is ready to pretend a crime actually happened?

Could we get a link?

[Husar]

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. I'm not the one claiming we are being ruled from the Lizard people on the moon.

You are however calling a man guilty before he has even been charged, according to our justice system that is not just extraordinary, it is plain wrong. You have to show why he is guilty, I do not have to prove that he is innocent. So far you have nothing but your own guilty verdic that you obviously reached without even knowing much about the case...

Could we get a link?

Already linked to that page that Snowhobbit tries to decry, but the info is also available on the BBC for example: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11049316

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.
In a brief statement Eva Finne said: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

Later another prosecutor did apparently find a reason to attempt to charge him, but the question remains why the first one didn't, the websaite linked earlier mentions another prosecutor who saw no reason to press charges. It's funny how we live in the "information age", yet nothing is clear anymore and the rest is all lies.

[Snowhobbit]

You are however calling a man guilty before he has even been charged, according to our justice system that is not just extraordinary, it is plain wrong. You have to show why he is guilty, I do not have to prove that he is innocent. So far you have nothing but your own guilty verdic that you obviously reached without even knowing much about the case...

Do you have another word to use for a man who sleeps with a woman without her consent? My dictionary calls that rapist, yours spells hero? I was unaware that the Backroom functioned as a court, have we sent Assange to jail yet?

Oddly...nobody has claimed anything about Lizard people on the moon,did you post this is the wrong thread? Any argument, if it is to be taken seriously, requires a framework of evidence. You have so far offered nothing of any value. Whenever you are asked for material supporting your position you have nothing, you just jump off into some whacked out notion of what you think the question means ....as opposed to it being a request for some corroboration of your position.

So...your argument cannot be taken seriously. You have nothing of any value to say on the issue and. You have made, by your own machinations, the position that you hold simply laughable. I am sure that is not what you intended...but maybe I'm wrong.Maybe you are actually a very clever satirist.

Yes, prosecutor statements and news articles and interviews is nothing. Mad fantasies about the massive reach and scope of US intelligence forces is hard data. Thanks for playing, do try again.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Do you have another word to use for a man who sleeps with a woman without her consent? My dictionary calls that rapist, yours spells hero? I was unaware that the Backroom functioned as a court, have we sent Assange to jail yet?

You are the one who has claimed that he is guilty....which is a decision to be made by a court. That is the function of a court, and until such a decision has been made the accused is presumed innocent. You are the only one here who has seen fit to function as a court.

You really don't understand the law do you?

Yes, prosecutor statements and news articles and interviews is nothing. Mad fantasies about the massive reach and scope of US intelligence forces is hard data. Thanks for playing, do try again.

What prosecutor statements?You clearly don't have access to such. Do you know how I figured that out? Because the best you could offer in support of that was that either they had received new evidence or that the evidence presented was likely to produce a conviction......so which is it? If you had access to such a statement then you would know......The idea you have in your head that a statement might exist which should clear the matter up is not real..it is not evidence of information, it is..it is an idea you have made up in your head.

You really don't understand what evidence is, do you?

[Snowhobbit]

You are the one who has claimed that he is guilty....which is a decision to be made by a court. That is the function of a court, and until such a decision has been made the accused is presumed innocent. You are the only one here who has seen fit to function as a court.

You really don't understand the law do you?




What prosecutor statements?You clearly don't have access to such. Do you know how I figured that out? Because the best you could offer in support of that was that either they had received new evidence or that the evidence presented was likely to produce a conviction......so which is it? If you had access to such a statement then you would know......The idea you have in your head that a statement might exist which should clear the matter up is not real..it is not evidence of information, it is..it is an idea you have made up in your head.

You really don't understand what evidence is, do you?

Oh I see. You are mistaking me for a judge, and the Backroom for a court of law. Let me assure you that neither of those things are true. Do you understand what an internet forum is? Do you understand what an opinion based on the facts of the matter are?

The prosecutor statements (otherwise known as things said by the prosecutor) can be found all over the media. I am simply offering the logical explanation for why two different prosecutors came to two different decisions. This is what is known as logic based on known facts, as opposed to figments of imagination to protect the "honour" of a rapist. Do you grasp the concept of rape?

[Husar]

Oh I see. You are mistaking me for a judge, and the Backroom for a court of law. Let me assure you that neither of those things are true. Do you understand what an internet forum is? Do you understand what an opinion based on the facts of the matter are?

Yes, the problem is that your opinion does not seem to be based on the facts of the matter as you fail so far to mention or recognize most of the important facts. Take your earlier reply:

Do you have another word to use for a man who sleeps with a woman without her consent? My dictionary calls that rapist, yours spells hero? I was unaware that the Backroom functioned as a court, have we sent Assange to jail yet?

Show me the fact that says he slept with another woman without her consent. A prosecutor thinking that he may have done so or a woman saying so does NOT make it a fact that he slept with a woman without her consent.
The tripe about dictionaries does not change that, it's just baseless accusations. In fact you seem more and more like a troll.

[Snowhobbit]

Yes, the problem is that your opinion does not seem to be based on the facts of the matter as you fail so far to mention or recognize most of the important facts. Take your earlier reply:



Show me the fact that says he slept with another woman without her consent. A prosecutor thinking that he may have done so or a woman saying so does NOT make it a fact that he slept with a woman without her consent.
The tripe about dictionaries does not change that, it's just baseless accusations. In fact you seem more and more like a troll.

No I think the problem is that you believe a rapist over the woman he raped and the police investigating it along with the prosecutor in charge of the case. His behaviour and refusal to participate in the criminal case speaks volumes about his "innocence and credibility". Going through your post history it is quite clear who is trolling here, and it is not me.

[Husar]

No I think the problem is that you believe a rapist over the woman he raped and the police investigating it along with the prosecutor in charge of the case.

The prosecutor in charge of the case said there is no case.
Your sentence about me believing the rapist even more is incredibly loaded, did you miss the lessons in school about stating something as fact that isn't?

His behaviour and refusal to participate in the criminal case speaks volumes about his "innocence and credibility".

Your presented lack of knowledge and terrible bias regarding the case makes it hard to believe your version of events however.

Going through your post history it is quite clear who is trolling here, and it is not me.

I'm not trolling, you keep making non-arguments, stating non-existant facts and putting words into my mouth.
I've told you earlier that if you can show some concrete evidence for why he is a rapist, I may even believe so, too. Since then you have only responded with stuff like "you support a rapist over a victim", haven't presented a single piece of evidence for your claims and just keep on attacking and stating "facts" you have no proof for. THAT is trolling because you just keep making us turn in circles and if you want to continue that way, you can discuss this with yourself or someone else.

[Snowhobbit]

The prosecutor in charge of the case said there is no case.
Your sentence about me believing the rapist even more is incredibly loaded, did you miss the lessons in school about stating something as fact that isn't?



Your presented lack of knowledge and terrible bias regarding the case makes it hard to believe your version of events however.



I'm not trolling, you keep making non-arguments, stating non-existant facts and putting words into my mouth.
I've told you earlier that if you can show some concrete evidence for why he is a rapist, I may even believe so, too. Since then you have only responded with stuff like "you support a rapist over a victim", haven't presented a single piece of evidence for your claims and just keep on attacking and stating "facts" you have no proof for. THAT is trolling because you just keep making us turn in circles and if you want to continue that way, you can discuss this with yourself or someone else.

The prosecutor in charge of the case is Marianne Ny. Have you eaten some funny shrooms?
The sentence about who you believe is based on the posts you have made on the forum, don't blame me that you are putting yourself out there on a controversial issue.

Yes, my presented lack of knowledge regarding the legal proceedings, the facts of the matter and the quoting of actually relevant news articles is truly astonishing.

If you want to see evidence, you are more than welcome to read the prosecutors case. As for the initial statement of the woman, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the term victim blaming (in particularly the notion of the victim blaming herself), shame and guilt, as well as trying to be nice (something mr I can't give a blood test so you don't have to go on HIV medicine hasn't understood the value of).

[Sarmatian]

You're making less and less sense and now you're looking really desperate to have people accept your point of view. I can't waste my time talking to the likes of you, so you kids have fun.

[Snowhobbit]

You're making less and less sense and now you're looking really desperate to have people accept your point of view. I can't waste my time talking to the likes of you, so you kids have fun.

Yep, actually getting answers to your questions and being asked questions to answer in turn is really hard.

[Gilrandir]

Hey man, it's not your fault you were raised in a Ukrainian culture, you can fight it!

I greatly doubt that you have a deep (if any) awareness of Ukrainian culture, still less any information of the culture I was raised in, and even still less of how much my personal "culture" bears upon mainstream Ukrainian culture.