-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Unless your maps look different from our maps Serbia is Eastern. Possibly South Eastern, but very much Eastern. Apparently being willfully ignorant of reality is a common trait over there.
No. Serbia is sometimes qualified as being in eastern Europe because of whole Orthodox Slavs and ex-communist thingy, by ignorant people who don't know anything about geography, but as southern Europe is comprised of three peninsulas and islands, and since most of Serbia lies in the Balkan peninsula, Serbia is in southern Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
No no, I am saying the prosecutor-general of Ecuador is spitefully keeping our beloved angel rapist Assange under detention in their embassy because he is the reincarnation of Hitler, duh. Again you ignore that Assange has refused to cooperate in having interviews this year, what happened 4 years ago is by comparison not as important to the situation today.
I do know how the law works, do you? A rapist is a man who rapes women, just like Assange. The evidence would have been tested years ago, if Assange was man enough to take responsibility for his behaviour. But as we all know our dear rapist is a big coward. There is no basis for the notion that he would be extradited to the US, but you'd have to know law to understand that. If you would like me to explain this to you in simple terms then do let me know.
You have at no point been able to touch base with reality in your posts in this thread, most impressive.
So you have decided that Assange is a rapist before he was even charged with rape. You ignore the facts you don't like so that you may cling to your view. Now you've decided that Ecuadorian prosecutor general is a puppet of Assange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0RoJz7Tno
You are... really special.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
No. Serbia is sometimes qualified as being in eastern Europe because of whole Orthodox Slavs and ex-communist thingy, by ignorant people who don't know anything about geography, but as southern Europe is comprised of three peninsulas and islands, and since most of Serbia lies in the Balkan peninsula, Serbia is in southern Europe.
So you have decided that Assange is a rapist before he was even charged with rape. You ignore the facts you don't like so that you may cling to your view. Now you've decided that Ecuadorian prosecutor general is a puppet of Assange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0RoJz7Tno
You are... really special.
Well lets just say that you have a very... Eastern.. way of thinking :)
I understand that you have 0 understanding of legal systems, but I would think that even you would grasp that a when a man engages in sex with a woman without her consent, that is rape. Or is that legal in the glorious land of Serbia?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Well lets just say that you have a very... Eastern.. way of thinking :)
Well, I do find some aspects of Buddhism and Confucianism fascinating.
Quote:
I understand that you have 0 understanding of legal systems, but I would think that even you would grasp that a when a man engages in sex with a woman without her consent, that is rape. Or is that legal in the glorious land of Serbia?
Well, in glorious land of Serbia there is a court which deals with that. Our system is also slightly more complicated, which is probably why I don't understand your legal system. We have something called presumption of innocence here, which is a concept that every person is innocent until proven guilty. And only a court decides whether a person's guilty after examining all evidence, hearing both sides and any possible witnesses.
How do you guys do it over there? Do tell, old chap, I find this very interesting. I'm learning new things. Yay me!
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Well, I do find some aspects of Buddhism and Confucianism fascinating.
Well, in glorious land of Serbia there is a court which deals with that. Our system is also slightly more complicated, which is probably why I don't understand your legal system. We have something called presumption of innocence here, which is a concept that every person is innocent until proven guilty. And only a court decides whether a person's guilty after examining all evidence, hearing both sides and any possible witnesses.
How do you guys do it over there? Do tell, old chap, I find this very interesting. I'm learning new things. Yay me!
We also have a system with these things known as courts. However before a person can be brought before the court for him to be charged with a crime, the prosecutor needs to conduct an interview with the person. It might be after all that he is not only innocent, but is able to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of the prosecutor at which point he need not even be brought before the court. This is a measure which saves cost for both parties and reduces the likelihood of someone being falsely convicted. Me calling someone a rapist is based on his actions, not on a conviction or lack thereof, and has no legal bearing anyway. I presume that you have this newfangled notion of "Free speech" in Serbia?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
We also have a system with these things known as courts. However before a person can be brought before the court for him to be charged with a crime, the prosecutor needs to conduct an interview with the person. It might be after all that he is not only innocent, but is able to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of the prosecutor at which point he need not even be brought before the court. This is a measure which saves cost for both parties and reduces the likelihood of someone being falsely convicted. Me calling someone a rapist is based on his actions, not on a conviction or lack thereof, and has no legal bearing anyway. I presume that you have this newfangled notion of "Free speech" in Serbia?
Indeed. And if a person believes his rights and safety are in danger, he has a right to demand an asylum. If one is granted to him, he can laugh off any and all accusations against him. Contrary to that, Assange is the one who has asked for an interview on multiple occasions, in the place he feels his safety is guaranteed, and it was the Swedish prosecutor who has been rejecting, time after time, and who has also refused to take a statement.
So, instead of getting off her northern behind and flying off to that western island, so she can interview that southern man, if that was the goal, she chose to keep sitting on her northern behind and do nothing. With your vast knowledge of legal systems, I assume you know that Sweden can charge and put to trial a person in absentia, just like they have ordered him detained in absentia. They have the statements from the victims, they have the original interview with Assange, the physical investigation is over, so they should have enough evidence to decide either way. Basically, an interview only helps Assange's case. Certainly no one expects him to incriminate himself, even if guilty. If we accept your point of view, that he has refused an opportunity to tell his side of the story, court could have very well continued on, to the detriment of Assange's case. Why didn't it?
Now if the problem is the interview, she could have conducted it multiple times already. But the problem is what happens afterwards - she either has to charge him or let him go, and both solutions would be acceptable if there weren't more at play than just legal issues.
So, one would have to wonder what's the reason this case has been in limbo for such a long time.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Indeed. And if a person believes his rights and safety are in danger, he has a right to demand an asylum. If one is granted to him, he can laugh off any and all accusations against him. Contrary to that, Assange is the one who has asked for an interview on multiple occasions, in the place he feels his safety is guaranteed, and it was the Swedish prosecutor who has been rejecting, time after time, and who has also refused to take a statement.
So, instead of getting off her northern behind and flying off to that western island, so she can interview that southern man, if that was the goal, she chose to keep sitting on her northern behind and do nothing. With your vast knowledge of legal systems, I assume you know that Sweden can charge and put to trial a person in absentia, just like they have ordered him detained in absentia. They have the statements from the victims, they have the original interview with Assange, the physical investigation is over, so they should have enough evidence to decide either way. Basically, an interview only helps Assange's case. Certainly no one expects him to incriminate himself, even if guilty. If we accept your point of view, that he has refused an opportunity to tell his side of the story, court could have very well continued on, to the detriment of Assange's case. Why didn't it?
Now if the problem is the interview, she could have conducted it multiple times already. But the problem is what happens afterwards - she either has to charge him or let him go, and both solutions would be acceptable if there weren't more at play than just legal issues.
So, one would have to wonder what's the reason this case has been in limbo for such a long time.
Asylum is usually something requested to avoid persecution, not prosecution. Assange is the one who is currently refusing interviews, the prosecutor has after being told by the supreme court moved to conduct interviews. This being unlike Assange who is too great and mighty to respect the decision of two (!) supreme courts. His mental illness is not relevant to the case.
They have gotten off their "northern behind" and flown off to that western island, but since the embassy did not wish to allow them to enter the embassy it all became moot. The formality of legal procedure requires for Assange to be presented with the prosecutions side of the story and give his own version before he can be brought to trial. He is of course not required to incriminate himself, such a claim is just ridiculous. Legal proceedings are required for a reason and cannot be exempted even for superstar rapists.
Ever since the prosecution changed its tune (and decided to do its damn job) the Assange side has refused to participate in an interview and have done everything they can to prevent such a thing from taking place.
The reason for this being in limbo is one of a few. 1, his lawyers are lying to him about the risk of extradition. 2, he is mentally ill and believes the CIA will send in a strike team the moment he steps outside of the embassy. 3, He is a rapist and prefers to sit in an Ecuadorian embassy over a Swedish jail.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
Asylum is usually something requested to avoid persecution, not prosecution.
That is up to him and the country he requested asylum from. A person can be persecuted by being prosecuted.
Quote:
Assange is the one who is currently refusing interviews, the prosecutor has after being told by the supreme court moved to conduct interviews. This being unlike Assange who is too great and mighty to respect the decision of two (!) supreme courts. His mental illness is not relevant to the case.
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.
Quote:
The formality of legal procedure requires for Assange to be presented with the prosecutions side of the story and give his own version before he can be brought to trial. He is of course not required to incriminate himself, such a claim is just ridiculous. Legal proceedings are required for a reason and cannot be exempted even for superstar rapists.
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.
Quote:
Dear Mr. Assange.
We wish to inform you that since you refused to give an interview which would only help your case, we have decided to formally charge you with rape of Name1 and Name2, under Swedish law, article X. The first hearing will be conducted at Date and Time.
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.
Quote:
Ever since the prosecution changed its tune (and decided to do its damn job) the Assange side has refused to participate in an interview and have done everything they can to prevent such a thing from taking place.
Not Assange. You're acting like he's the ruler of Ecuador.
Quote:
The reason for this being in limbo is one of a few. 1, his lawyers are lying to him about the risk of extradition. 2, he is mentally ill and believes the CIA will send in a strike team the moment he steps outside of the embassy. 3, He is a rapist and prefers to sit in an Ecuadorian embassy over a Swedish jail.
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."
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
If I remember correctly, Assange received a guarantee early on that he wouldn't be shipped out to the USA and ignored it anyway?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beskar
If I remember correctly, Assange received a guarantee early on that he wouldn't be shipped out to the USA and ignored it anyway?
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
...and after this incoherent ramble you suggest that I cannot touch base with reality...?
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gilrandir
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greyblades
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
Quote:
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
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?
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhobbit
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
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).
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
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.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
Yep, actually getting answers to your questions and being asked questions to answer in turn is really hard.
-
Re: UN rules in favour of Assange
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snowhobbit
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.
