Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Captain Chaos

Assange arrested

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

He was accused of not using a condom despite being told to use one.

 

And have sex with a woman who was asleep and couldn't give consent. 

 

No charges were made. What???


Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, wasab said:

And have sex with a woman who was asleep and couldn't give consent. 

 

No charges were made. What???

One of them continued to let him stay at her home after the alleged incident. Nah sorry, not buying it. 


 Motherboard  ROG Strix B350-F Gaming | CPU Ryzen 5 1600 | GPU Sapphire Radeon RX 480 Nitro+ OC  | RAM Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000MHz 2x8Gb | OS Drive  Crucial MX300 525Gb M.2 | WiFi Card  ASUS PCE-AC68 | Case Switch 810 Gunmetal Grey SE | Storage WD 1.5tb, SanDisk Ultra 3D 500Gb, Samsung 840 EVO 120Gb | NAS Solution Synology 413j 8TB (6TB with 2TB redundancy using Synology Hybrid RAID) | Keyboard SteelSeries APEX | Mouse Razer Naga MMO Edition Green | Fan Controller Sentry LXE | Screens Sony 43" TV | Sound Logitech 5.1 X530

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Noctus said:

One of them continued to let him stay at her home after the alleged incident. Nah sorry, not buying it. 

You do know many victims of abuse stay with their abusers for years right?


Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wasab said:

And have sex with a woman who was asleep and couldn't give consent. 

 

No charges were made. What???

Correct. The investigation did not lead to any charges, meaning the investigation did not conclude that there was any rape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Correct. The investigation did not lead to any charges, meaning the investigation did not conclude that there was any rape.

Only because he was hiding inside the embassy. 


Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wasab said:

Only because he was hiding inside the embassy. 

Utterly False. The ability to lay charges is not dependent upon a person being present, charges can be laid at any time. If charges are not laid, it's because evidence hasn't accumulated to the point that reasonable confidence in the allegations has been established.

 

Swedish investigators were invited to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy since 2011, but were requested by the UK government to not do so because they wanted to keep the pretext of extradition to Sweden available so they could arrest him if he leaves the embassy.

 

 

In about-face, Sweden offers to question Assange in London

Quote

On Friday, Swedish prosecutors reversed their long refusal to question Assange inside his London bolt hole, citing the five-year statute of limitations on some of the allegations against him.

 

One of Assange's defense lawyers, Per Samuelson, called the about-face "a great victory for Julian Assange," and indicated the 43-year-old Australian would likely agree to be questioned.

 

"This is something we've demanded for over four years," Samuelson told The Associated Press after speaking to Assange on Friday. "Julian Assange wants to be interviewed so he can be exonerated."

 

UK resisted Julian Assange’s offer to be questioned in London, emails reveal

Quote

Emails obtained by Italian news magazine L’Espresso under the Freedom of Information Act showed that Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service wrote to the Swedish authorities in 2011, saying it would “not be prudent” for them to interview Assange in the UK.

 

“Any attempt to interview him under strict Swedish law would invariably be fraught with problems,” said one email, dated 25 January 2011. Another email dated 13 January 2011 said: “Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request.”

 

Assange said: “This is astonishing. I have been on the phone with my lawyers all morning and they are as shocked as I am.”

 

The Swedish investigation was deceitfully designed to avoid resolving it so that the UK could maintain a pretext to arrest Assange.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Delicieuxz said:

Utterly False. The ability to lay charges is not dependent upon a person being present. Charges can be laid at any time. If charges are not laid, it's because evidence hasn't accumulated to the point that reasonable confidence in the allegations have been established.

 

Hiding inside an embassy in a foreign country does make it awfully inconvenient to gather evidences doesn't it. 

 

Btw, Swedish authorities did issues an international warrant for his arrest. 


Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wasab said:

Hiding inside an embassy in a foreign country does make it awfully inconvenient to gather evidences doesn't it. 

 

Btw, Swedish authorities did issues an international warrant for his arrest. 

No, being in the embassy doesn't interfere with the ability to gather evidence through interviewing Assange.

 

Refusing to interview Assange in the embassy is what prevented the investigation from progressing - and that was done deliberately by the Swedish investigators and the UK government. They didn't want the investigation to possibly conclude as that would take away the public rationale for the UK government arresting Assange to extradite him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

 

Swedish investigators were invited to interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy since 2011, but were requested by the UK government to not do so because they wanted to keep the pretext of extradition to Sweden available so they could arrest him if he leaves the embassy.

 

 

In about-face, Sweden offers to question Assange in London

 

UK resisted Julian Assange’s offer to be questioned in London, emails reveal

 

The Swedish investigation was deceitfully designed to avoid resolving it so that the UK could maintain a pretext to arrest Assange.

Doesn't matter. He can be first flown to America where Uncle Sam will hand down his judgement and after he serve his sentence, he can then be flown to Sweden where he faces rape investigation. 


Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wasab said:

Doesn't matter. He can be first flown to America where Uncle Sam will hand down his judgement and after he serve his sentence, he can then be flown to Sweden where he faces rape investigation. 

So, you're revealing that all your arguments in this thread have been guided by ulterior motives and that you've been saying whatever to attack Assange without caring what the fact are

 

 You don't care that there are actually no charges against Assange, that the Swedish investigation never found sufficient evidence to charge Assange, that it was by deliberate choice of the Swedish investigators and UK government that the allegations against Assange weren't pursued, that the Swedish investigation was used as a clandestine front to actually arrest Assange for extradition to the US, or anything else you've asserted claims about. What you care about is getting some self-gratifying revenge on Assange for him publishing the truth in US government documents. But, the truth, it seems, doesn't matter to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, being in the embassy doesn't interfere with the ability to gather evidence through interviewing Assange.

 

Refusing to interview Assange in the embassy is what prevented the investigation from progressing - and that was done deliberately by the Swedish investigators and the UK government. They didn't want the investigation to possibly conclude as that would take away the public rationale for the UK government arresting Assange to extradite him.

How would the conclusion of the investigation mean people wouldn't want him extradited? 


Specs: 

 

  • i5-8600K 
  • Evga Black RTX 2070 
  • 16GB DDR4 2400MHz 
  • ASRock Extreme 4 Z370 
  • Fractal Design Meshify C Light TG 

Location: UK 

Plays: Minesweeper at 1000 fps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bradwiggo said:

How would the conclusion of the investigation mean people wouldn't want him extradited? 

If the investigation concluded without finding grounds to indict Assange of anything then the Swedish extradition request would be cancelled and the grounds stated by the UK government for needing to arrest Assange would be no more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, wasab said:

If he is innocent, why would he refuse a proper trial in Sweden?

Probably because of the fear of being extradited.

 

Sweden's prisons are basically Club Meds.


i7 7700k @ 4.2GHz

Asus Strix OC 1080Ti

ROG Maximus IX Hero

EVGA G2 850W

32GB DDR4 (16x2) @ 3000Mhz

X62 Kraken

Creative Soundblaster Zx

Windows 10 Pro x64

Phanteks Primo

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, being in the embassy doesn't interfere with the ability to gather evidence through interviewing Assange.

 

Refusing to interview Assange in the embassy is what prevented the investigation from progressing - and that was done deliberately by the Swedish investigators and the UK government. They didn't want the investigation to possibly conclude as that would take away the public rationale for the UK government arresting Assange to extradite him.

Just because the investigation was not concluded does not mean he is innocent. Assange made his bed a long time ago, and whether he likes it or not he has to sleep in it. He should have done it with dignity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

So, you're revealing that all your arguments in this thread have been guided by ulterior motives and that you've been saying whatever to attack Assange without caring what the fact are

 

 You don't care that there are actually no charges against Assange, that the Swedish investigation never found sufficient evidence to charge Assange, that it was by deliberate choice of the Swedish investigators and UK government that the allegations against Assange weren't pursued, that the Swedish investigation was used as a clandestine front to actually arrest Assange for extradition to the US, or anything else you've asserted claims about. What you care about is getting some self-gratifying revenge on Assange for him publishing the truth in US government documents. But, the truth, it seems, doesn't matter to you.

I'm saying he ought to face rape investigation regardless if he is in danger of being extradited to USA or not. 


Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, floofer said:

Just because the investigation was not concluded does not mean he is innocent. Assange made his bed a long time ago, and whether he likes it or not he has to sleep in it. He should have done it with dignity. 

I didn't say that it does. I said there are no charges and that in the course of investigating so far no grounds for charges were discovered.

 

And your comment about 'made his bed, now has to sleep in it' ignores the elephant in the room of the goal of Sweden, the UK, and the US to extradite Assange to the US for something else entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Delicieuxz said:

I didn't say that it does. I said there are no charges and that in the course of investigating so far no grounds for charges were discovered.

 

And your comment about 'made his best, now has to sleep in it' ignores the elephant in the room of the goal of Sweden, the UK, and the US to extradite Assange to the US for something else entirely.

His bed includes the computer hacking charges. He knew exactly what he was doing every step of the way. Sweden has issued a warrant for his arrest, and for him to be extradited. Convenience is probably the issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, floofer said:

His bed includes the computer hacking charges. He knew exactly what he was doing every step of the way. Sweden has issued a warrant for his arrest, and for him to be extradited. Convenience is probably the issue. 

The conspiracy-to-hack charge is bogus, and something Obama's DoJ refused to prosecute Assange for due to its impact on press freedom.

 

Sweden doesn't currently have a warrant for his arrest as the deadline for the investigation expired in 2015.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

The hacking conspiracy charge is bogus, and something Obama's DoJ refused to prosecute Assange for due to its impact on press freedom.

 

Sweden doesn't currently have a warrant for his arrest as the deadline for the investigation expired in 2015.

 

Of course the charge is fake, but it doesn't mean Assange isn't wanted. Assange knew what would happen if he released the documents, the authorities would get to him by any means. I think I meant to say Sweden are re-opening the rape case against Assange. Either way, it won't end well for him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, floofer said:

Of course the charge is fake, but it doesn't mean Assange isn't wanted. Assange knew what would happen if he released the documents, the authorities would get to him by any means.

Assange violated no law by releasing government and classified documents. There's nothing legitimate to go after him for, there. So, He hasn't made the bed that's being served him right now, if it comes down to releasing documents.

 

The US Supreme Court ruled on this in 1971 when the NYT and Washington Post published the stolen classified military documents dubbed the "Pentagon Papers".

 

1101698953_PentagonPapers.jpg.e2523a29153d4b98a3f90dd9346de65b.jpg

 

Quote

I think I meant to say Sweden are re-opening the rape case against Assange. Either way, it won't end well for him. 

It's been speculated by news outlets and one of the original 2 women has said she's asked for it, but, so far, that's as far as the possibility has gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Assange violated no law by releasing government and classified documents. There's nothing legitimate to go after him for, there. So, He hasn't made the bed that's being served him right now, if it comes down to releasing documents.

 

The US Supreme Court ruled on this in 1971 when the NYT and Washington Post published the stolen classified military documents dubbed the "Pentagon Papers".

 

1101698953_PentagonPapers.jpg.e2523a29153d4b98a3f90dd9346de65b.jpg

 

It's been speculated by news outlets and one of the original 2 women has said she's asked for it, but, so far, that's as far as the possibility has gone.

If you are so sure there wouldn't be legal repercussions, why would you be against his extradition to the US?


Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wasab said:

If you are so sure there wouldn't be legal repercussions, why would you be against his extradition to the US?

That question makes no sense. If there wasn't anything wrong done then it's unjust and immoral to seek to extradite and punish him.

 

If you're innocent of murder or rape or theft, why would you be against being charged and arrested for those things by a government that has clearly shown it doesn't care what the law is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Delicieuxz said:

That question makes no sense. If there wasn't anything wrong done then it's unjust and immoral to seek to extradite and punish him.

 

If you're innocent of murder or rape or theft, why would you be against being charged and arrested for those things by a government that has clearly shown it doesn't care what the law is?

Because I'm being accuse and I would eagerly face my accuser to clear my name instead of being hunted down like an outlaw?


Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, wasab said:

Because I'm being accuse and I would eagerly face my accuser to clear my name instead of being hunted down like an outlaw?

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.

 

We're talking about disingenuous charges, made by a government that doesn't care what the law says, to be judged on by a secret espionage court that isn't accountable to the public.

 

If you're innocent, you'd eagerly walk into a trap that is meant to incarcerate or disappear you regardless of what the law says and what justice is?

 

You don't value your money (which you'll be spending a ton of) or your time (which you won't have) or your freedom (which you also won't have) because you want to face the not-even-identified accusations people who simply want to destroy you will decide on in a secretive tribunal?

 

Then you have no sense.

 

 

So, if China decides to accuse you of terrorism against the state of China right now, based on nothing, you'd immediately be eager to go to China to defend against those accusations?

 

I think you're saying things either without thinking about them, or hoping that people reading them won't think about what it is you're saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.

 

We're talking about disingenuous charges, made by a government that doesn't care what the law says, to be judged on by a secret espionage court that isn't accountable to the public.

 

If you're innocent, you'd eagerly walk into a trap that is meant to incarcerate or disappear you regardless of what the law says and what justice is?

 

You don't value your money (which you'll be spending a ton of) or your time (which you won't have) or your freedom (which you also won't have) because you want to face the not-even-identified accusations people who simply want to destroy you will decide on in a secretive tribunal?

 

Then you have no sense.

 

 

So, if China decides to accuse you of terrorism against the state of China right now, based on nothing, you'd immediately be eager to go to China to defend against those accusations?

 

I think you're saying things either without thinking about them, or hoping that people reading them won't think about what it is you're saying.

1

unwilling to trust the justice system is either 

1) the system is corrupt

2) you are actually guilty

 

Over here in the US, I believe in the latter. 

 

Also, guys like him tend to go around in western democracies, most of who are allies of the US and have extradition treaties with the US government. If he desires sympathy in his goal of exposing corrupt governments and atrocities, he can go work for human rights watch and leak secret information from north Korea or something. Why does he want to leak something from western democracies which put the lives of countless anti-terrorism operatives and military personnel at risk? 


Sudo make me a sandwich 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×