Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
I'm shocked that there are people who believe that Ecuador has done well by granting Assange political asylum.
To the contrary, this is a case of a potential criminal who has taken shelter in a SOCIALIST dictatorship from trial in a free world country. Nothing could be more scandalous than this. This act by Ecuador violates international law. No person against who criminal proceedings are underway can be considered a refugee.
Why did Assange not go to the court (in Sweden) if he was innocent? His guilt is now self-evident to the whole world.
Of course, there are those who believe that the rape charge were cooked up. Well, that was all the more reason for Assange to prove his innocence – IN COURT. His defence (political asylum) is ridiculous in the extreme.
Assange is clearly a HEINOUS RAPIST hiding from the courts.
Let's not not talk about Wikileaks in this contest. Let's don't mix up things!! That's a great and fundamental human error – to mix things.
This is a CLEAR CUT CASE of rape, and Assange is as guilty as anyone can be of rape. His running away from justice is clear proof.
Addendum
A friend has suggested that Assange has committed a "petty" crime. Surely rape is not a petty crime! It is one of the most heinous crimes on the planet. We can't disregard claims by women of rape. Why would any woman make such allegations if these were not true? The matter is not for us to decide, anyway.
Then I was told that the back ground leading to the rape charges is shaky and not convincing. Well, that's exactly the point. No honest man is afraid of the court. I'm not a judge and don't have time to investigate. I can't form opinions on crimes based on flimsy journalistic claims. Assange should face a proper trial.
The fact that he is HIDING from the law is PROOF that he is guilty. I can't think of any other explanation.
Addendum
I'm told that the complaints against Assange "were planted by FBI James Bond girls style". That is sheer nonsense!
The complaint against Julian Assange was first lodged in Sweden on 20 August 2010. The release of 251,000 cables by Assange took place on 28 November 2010. Assange was of NO INTEREST to anyone in the world when the complaint against him was lodged.
Addendum
Please be clear: either you are against rape or you are not. Your “feelings” for a rapist should not cloud your judgement.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- What’s common between my condemnation of Assange the rapist and Obama’s murderous drone attacks?
- Please be clear: either you are against rape or you are not. Your “feelings” for a rapist should not cloud your judgement.
- The UK extradites FIVE criminals each day. Why is Assange so special?
- The importance of using reason to assess evidence. Key issues re: Julian Assange.
- Please read every word of this: Qadri’s fatwa AGAINST heinous, anti-human, barbarous ‘Muslim’ terrorists
- Some good news: funding of Indian political parties to be closely monitored
- Rahul Gandhi – No!! No government funding of political parties, but payment based on valid votes polled
- Reforms of Political Representation in India
- India needs political reforms, not a presidential system
- A note on the history of political corruption in England
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
Assange is a HEINOUS rapist, not a political refugee! http://t.co/mECYvBLQ #currentaffairs
Assange is a HEINOUS rapist, not a political refugee! http://t.co/4YFu6qCr
Assange is a HEINOUS rapist, not a political refugee! http://t.co/mECYvBLQ #currentaffairs
Or both… No? “@sabhlok: Assange is a HEINOUS rapist, not a political refugee! http://t.co/TyVCSk0A #currentaffairs”
“Why would any woman make such allegations if these were not true?” That kind of argument is the most ridiculous argument i have heard in a while. For women who already had consensual sex, it would not be difficult to accuse someone for different advantages. If that is the thought process, may i remind that you have a look at the severity of the misuse of 498A in India itself.
And for the second addendum, maybe a basic research on wiki would help to understand assange’s beef with US well before he released cables and well before he was accused of rape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Public_appearances_and_residency
Any person wise enough would take asylum or run irrespective of their honesty. Purpose is sometimes more important than the means. To put it in perspective, a stronger wall won’t survive a tsunami wave but weak grass can just by bending itself to the situation. I was expecting better judgement and good reasoning when you are accusing someone. Being a former govt executive, you of all should know how hard it is for a single person to survive the tide of govt machinery against him.
Dear Raghavan
I disagree entirely. Here is not just any allegation. This has been investigated by the Swedish police, and the case justified to a British Court. There is clearly sufficient proof against Assange.
The simple truth is that Assange is HIDING from the trial. To me that’s TOTAL proof of his guilt.
This is an open and shut case.
s
You have used the word “clearly” inaccurately. He is not “clearly” a rapist because he refuses to go to Sweden. In the same vain that you clearly have misunderstandings and false presumptions about life. How would you feel, if another made a false accusation about you? I dare you to do better in this life and apply your self to truth and honesty. It would help this beloved world. good luck.
I am entitled to exercise my judgement about Assange’s cuplability.
Based on his behaviour, his culpability is clear to me. No one was killing him. Just asking him to appear for trial. And he fled!!
s
I’m posting a few of my comments from facebook where I’ve had an extensive debate on a post where I shared this article by Sanjeev.
“…this is not about Wikileaks or Bradley Manning. It’s about Julian Assange, an individual who is an entity distinct from Wikileaks. Also, while Manning is a heroic whistleblower who has a right to protection, Assange is no more than an opportunistic entrepreneur who probably bit more than he could chew. No sane person would view the two in the same light. And that has been the core of my argument since the beginning.
For argument’s sake, let’s assume that Assange does indeed get extradited to the US. That would be unfortunate, but the responsibility for his situation would also lie equally on his shoulders. He put himself in such a situation due to a borderline sociopathic thinking of his that if he’d had consensual sex with a woman once, he’s free to have sex with her for the rest of his life. He is a adult with at least an above average intelligence and he was well aware of the power imbalances of the world he was operating in. In full knowledge of these facts, he committed an indiscretion that’s coming back at him in a form he hadn’t perhaps expected when he committed it. But then, he had all the information & faculties required to deduce the possible consequences of his act, given his vocation & his knowledge of the power structures. And consequences are always rooted in the here & now, rather than stone tablets from Mt.Sinai.
An idea, IMO, is always above an individual. All humans have failings…and all humans perish. Assange is no exception. Ideas, on the other hand, outlive humans. Even if an Assange or a Manning were to be sacrificed in this battle for freedom of information, the battle will go on. At the same time, an individual’s accountability for his actions is the bedrock of individual liberties and this credo can’t be sacrificed at the altar of any movement, however noble it may be.
I’m even more convinced of my stand after Assange’s public statement a few hours ago. His statement obfuscated the truth with gay abandon while he played to the galleries. All this has rendered his integrity largely suspect in my eyes. In all his high praise for the ‘brave government of Equador’, there was not a tinge of discomfort with the fact that the same government in Equador has one of the worst records worldwide in the freedom of speech & information stakes. Suddenly, Assange the individual becomes more important than his movement. And the ‘crusader’ for freedom is breaking bread with suppressors of freedom. How convenient!
Let arguments & assumptions be and let’s look at the facts now. There is no reason to believe that he’ll be any more in danger if he’s in Sweden than he is now while in the UK. A lot is being made of Sweden’s policy of temporary surrender – one of the key points in Assange’s appeal against the extradition request. But a similar treaty exists between the US & UK too (please refer to Article 14 of the US-UK Extradition treaty of 2003). The reason why his appeal against extradition was rightly turned down by the entire justice chain in the UK is the same – his lawyers could not prove why there would be more risk to his life in Sweden than in the UK where he was residing out of his own free will. The same condition – an imminent danger to his life through the death penalty or other provable extra-constitutional factors – would be the deciding factor if at all the question of Sweden extraditing him to the US arises…and the Swedish justice system will give him a chance to appeal against the request just as the UK justice system did in the case of the request from Sweden. If there’s enough proof to indicate such a possibility, both Sweden & UK are bound by their own laws not to extradite him.”
One more…
“Answers to certain questions that pr-Assange mobs are asking are out there in public domain. Took me 20 minutes to do a conclusive research on a pathetically slow Airtel connection. I’m sure an army of crusaders who believe that information should be set free could have done much better. But amazingly, they persist with the questions…knowing fully well that not many have the stomach for research…and the probability of their bluff being called in the din of the internet is very low. This is malicious obfuscation of facts. Let me answer a couple of these questions…and my answers quote the Swedish statute books verbatim.
**1. Since when does a suspect need to be questioned to frame charges, and if a suspect refuses to be questioned, will charges not be framed?
‘The suspect may be charged in court with an offence only if there are sufficient reasons for the charge (ch. 23 sect. 2 CJP). This rule is interpreted in such a way that the prosecutor has to have objective and reasonable reasons to believe that the court will convict the accused. Groundless prosecution in court is an offence according to the Swedish CC (ch. 15 sect. 5 CC).’
Now, you have to do a little bit of unlearning to fully appreciate the taxonomy of the Swedish Justice system. Not much…as I said, this took me just 20 minutes…but an effort at unlearning is required. Unlike our system, or the ones in UK & US, where questioning precedes prosecution, under Swedish rules, questioning is a part of prosecution, which commences the moment a complaint is made. Interestingly, in some cases (like in the presence of a policeman), prosecution begins at the very moment the crime happens as the policeman witnessing the crime is bound by law to report it immediately. They operate in a way different to the way we do. But isn’t that their right as a sovereign nation? And these statutes have been in effect long before Julian Assange was even born.
What if a suspect refuses to be questioned? That’s equivalent to stalling prosecution, which is what Assange is doing, while at the same time, pulling wool over our eyes through his self-righteous grandstanding. And one who stalls prosecution by not presenting himself when asked to, is implicitly a fugitive from law.
**2. What has changed between the previous questioning and now? There is no new evidence.
The coming together of this man…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claes_Borgstr%C3%B6m
and this statute…
‘If the victim of the crime is not satisfied with the prosecutor’s decision to waive prosecution, the victim may complain about it. In that case, the decision will be re-examined by a higher prosecutor. Actually, the law does not expressly regulate the complaints procedure against decisions made by prosecutors (as well as police officers), during the preliminary investigation regardless whether the offender or the victim has lodged the complaint. The present legal situation as regards this particular issue has been established in legal practice.
If a prosecutor has decided on waiving prosecution in a particular case, the question whether the victim itself can take over and continue the prosecution is not quite clear. By law, this is possible only if the victim has reported the crime to the prosecution and the prosecutor has made a formal decision not to prosecute in court (ch. 20 sect. 8 CJP). The injured party can take over the prosecution also if the prosecutor has decided to withdraw the prosecution after the case has been brought to court. In that case, it is not necessary that the victim has reported the crime to prosecution (ch. 20 sect. 9 CJP). If the attitude of the victim, who might have a right to take over and continue the prosecution, would be such that it would be possible to expect that the victim makes use of his or her right, the prosecutor will probably refrain from a decision on waiving prosecution.’
Please note that neither the US nor Wikileaks is a part of the narrative anywhere. This is completely a subset of the internal dynamics of Swedish politics. The judiciary in the UK must have taken cognizance of these circumstances before arriving at their decision.”
Excellent research, Sameer. I’m convinced Julian is trying to hide something. There is simply no risk to his life or limb, and if US/UK misbehave, their politicians will fall on their face as the world protests against injustice. But currently, the shoe is on the other side. It is Julian who is completely at fault.
I find this post too bombastic and opinionated, Sanjeev, probably coloured by your previous views that Wikileaks was in the wrong in revealing official secrets (I will not argue that part here).
But:
The problem with this whole Swedish trial and extradition request is two-fold:
1. The Swedish prosecutor had previously declined to prosecute Assange on these charges, after reviewing the evidence and speaking with the person who levied the charges.
The sudden change in the decision of the same prosecutor does lead to some questions as to whether pressure was applied? Given the historic and close relationship between the USA and Sweden armed forces, especially special forces, this is a point worth consideration.
2. The lawyers for Assange have stated, on his behalf, that he would “consider” surrender and face charges, and possible punishment, in Sweden IF Sweden would give a public assurance that he would not be extradited to the US. Sweden has refused to even comment on this request, leave alone provide such a guarantee.
Let us be clear here: what is at stake is not Assange giving himself up to face rape charges in Sweden, but giving himself up to face charges under the Official Secrets Act in the USA. The US has always believed and acted on the consideration that its laws have extra-territorial reach – this is just another such instance. On the flip side, the US has never agreed to even international criminal laws (International Criminal Court of Justice) having any jurisdiction on its own citizens.
So, this is indeed a good test case of individual freedom against USA laws. And, while surely Ecuador is having a hysterically good time, having poked the USA in the eye, some country needed to stand against the US extra-territorial application of its laws.
Cheers
And, while we are on this topic, let us consider why the US will not extradite Warren Anderson to India?
Cheers
Supratim
This is not, in my opinion, a US issue. A common, criminal issue. Please ready my further analyses:
a) http://sabhlokcity.com/2012/08/the-importance-of-using-reason-to-assess-evidence-key-issues-re-julian-assange/
b) http://sabhlokcity.com/2012/08/the-uk-extradites-five-criminals-each-day-why-is-assange-so-special/
US is not obliged to give any assurances to Assange. What gall for a person under investigation for a heinous crime to demand such assurances!
And I’d personally be quite happy for Assange to be extradited to US for exposing US troops (and informers) to danger. Assange is a threat to liberty, and not a saviour of mankind, anyway.
But this is still not the issue. And my opinion on Wikileaks is neither here nor there.
The issue is plain and simple – of a serious crime. Assange’s attempts to dodge the court merely indicate his culpability – to my mind. I may be proven wrong, but I’m used to the idea that ONLY thieves flee. In 99 per cent of the cases (at least) only the guilty flee the justice system.
s
Sanjeev,
You said “US is not obliged to give any assurances to Assange. What gall for a person under investigation for a heinous crime to demand such assurances!”
No, the US does not have to give any assurances – Assange is asking Sweden to provide these assurances.
And, yes, he is charged (no longer investigation) of a very heinous crime – and he should offer himself up in court for defence and judgement.
But, let us assume that Assange is a rational man, and by his actions, he does show himself to be rational – if he is convicted of rape in Sweden, he faces 5-7 years in prison. But, if he is extradited from Sweden to the US, he faces 30 years to life in a high security prison under the OSA.
So, the US laws and US intentions are very much at issue here for Assange – even, if you choose not to see it.
Why would he be stupid enough to even show up for trumped-up rape charges (remember the earlier dismissal by the same prosecutor?), when he faces the risk of losing his liberty and freedom for ever?
Unless you can answer the US question and the applicability of its laws in an extra-territorial manner, all you fulminations against Assange have no meaning.
And, yes, as your link says, the UK extradites so many criminals everyday – so, why is this different? It is different because the UK can not extradite Assange to the US (their best friend) as his “crimes” would qualify under political freedom acts and protection in the UK – such protections are not available to Assange in Sweden.
So, get him to Sweden on a rape charge – then he is declared innocent of these charges and set free – into the waiting arms of US special forces who then whisk him off to the US. Is this such a hard scenario to imagine?
I think not!
And, did you know of the special terms imposed by Portugal when Abu Salem was extradited to India?
And, what about Warren Anderson? Why will the US not extradite an indicted criminal to India?
And, just to correct Sameer from the first link that you posted, Sanjeev:
Assange was not on trial in the UK on the rape charges. He contested the extradition request of Sweden and sought asylum once the extradition request was granted.
The key issue is that he fears extradition or even illegal rendition (remember that one?) from Sweden to the US.
Why is Sweden not willing to give a guarantee that Assange would be returned to the UK either post his trial (if found innocent) or post imprisonment (if found guilty).
Heck, the US is not going to kill him – they will just stick him into a hole for 30 years. Under the US OSA, he is obviously guilty of exposing state secrets. And, this is the key point for me – why should he knowingly put himself into this hole? Let the US first argue and establish at Hague why its laws have extra-territorial and supra-citizenship application.
Until then, Assange should stay in Ecuador.
Supratim
I wish I had the time to enter into all these hypothetical games. I don’t and strongly discourage such thinking.
We mustn’t allow Assange’s mind games to succeed. He must first explain the alleged crime. If he is acquitted, then all other questions will arise. The obfuscation of key issues must not be allowed to continue.
Let the legal processes proceed, one step at a time.
The US has (without being required to do so) also made clear that Assange’s current problem has nothing to do with Wikileaks.
http://www.rferl.org/content/assange-sex-case-us/24683345.html. Note that the USA has a reputation (no matter how poor in the eyes of some) to defend. It will ensure that in such a high profile case, sufficient proof is offered.
But more importantly, US has its troops and informers to defend. Its strategic interests have global impacts. On everyone’s freedom. So, if it is genuinely necessary for US to stop Assange’s actions, they will do so in due course. They can neutralise him in 5 minutes, anyway, regardless of where he is. I can’t see Assange successfully fighting US if he is compromising US security. But Assange’s hiding in Ecuador is as good as neutralising himself. So US (if they were interested in Assange) would be happy with this current outcome, anyway.
I don’t think we should start linking different cases or different situations. Sure, Assange is entitled to confuse himself, and act as a coward, but in the field of public opinion, he has now firmly alienated himself from those who believe that he must prove his innocence in court, not hide in Ecuador’s embassy.
Let me say this. Had Gandhi been Assange, he would have WELCOMED the opportunity to go to court and speak out the truth. I don’t think I have sympathies for cowards. Even if he is innocent, he has more to gain by being a “martyr” than coward.
s
Just noticed that Stella Rimington, a former MI5 director-general has said that Assange’s approach had put lives at risk. That’s not the same as saying that lives have been lost, but it is serious enough to prevent any rational human being from supporting this part of his “work”.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/assange-naive-but-us-to-blame-for-leaks-says-exspy-chief-20120822-24lrd.html
Assange is not my hero, let’s just say that. A man who endangers the lives of soldiers, informers, and innocent free people is not my kind of hero.
And this inquiry re: rape is extremely serious.
I cannot sympathise no matter how many mental gymnastics are involved. I prefer to focus on VALUES and PRINCIPLES, not technicalities.
s
My last word on this…
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sameer-panje/julian-assange-hero-or-rapist/10152047242690111
Dear Sanjeev,
Now I read trough your article, and I found it overly critical of the man who is responsible for bringing into light the truth of the “”heroic saviors of Iraq and Afghanistan” and their very explicit elimination of threat(with a camera or a bazooka, doesn’t matter). I feel, to call mr Assange a “heinous rapist” is just absurd on your part .
You did mention that he should have faced up to the charges levied and gone to court to prove his innocence. Later on he would have been easily extradited to the US, where he would have for sure ended up in a small 6×8 prison cell, probably even without a trial(just like Bradley Manning), and probably be mentally tortured till the time the US decides it is fitting for them to declare him as “mentally unstable”, or an even better scenario would be to have a dismally slow court proceeding. I know that my imagination is running wild with the endless possibilities of torment mr Assange could face, I was however am iterating it to give an idea of what could happen if he were extradited to the US.
Do I think that mr. Assange raped those women?
Maybe, or could it be just like the”James Bond girls style FBI trap” AKA honeytrap? Don’t know.
Let us assume it is a honey trap how is it to be proven?
Not possible. Rape is rape and is Sweden the laws very are strict.
Believe me when I say, I would love to see mr Assange face up to the alleged charges, but he has never said he wouldn’t fight in court. All he wants is an agreement from the Swedish authorities not to extradite him to the US, which went to deaf ears. How is a respectable man to behave when he faces such a massive witch hunt by the Imperialist forces?
“complaint against Julian Assange was first lodged in Sweden on 20 August 2010. The release of 251,000 cables by Assange took place on 28 November 2010″, This is what you had written to prove that mr. Assange was of no interest before 28 November. Well the notorious and embarrassing “Collateral Murder” Video was presented at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 5, 2010. The rest as they say is history, in this case “History still in making”.
P.S
Please do take time to read the following article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/bradley-manning-military-code-lawyer
Sometime I ask myself is it fair to constantly clobber one man over a rape when one is responsible for numerous rapes, murders? maybe it is.
War is organized murder and torture against our brothers.
~Alfred Adler
Cheers.
Dhaneesh
A man’s good actions DO NOT give him a licence to rape.
Plus his bad actions in leaking data are almost certain to have harmed many people. Possibly got some of them killed.
“US documents on the opposition in Belarus, for example, were given to the Belarussian government by people working for WikiLeaks, thereby giving President Alexander Lukashenko (often dubbed “Europe’s last dictator”) a ready-made hit list.
“Assange highlighted the case of Nabeel Rajab, a jailed Bahraini human rights activist. But it is precisely such people who had the most to fear from the leaking of documents that gave an overview of unredacted dissenting activity garnered from people who felt they were speaking in secret.
“WikiLeaks documents named witnesses against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Beijing lawyers who briefed on reform and Zimbabwean generals who chatted freely with a US ambassador.”
Details: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/self-promotion-as-dissident-doesnt-make-assange-one/story-fnb64oi6-1226456042487
In my view if you get ONE innocent man killed you are guilty of crime. So if US wants to have him extradited (which they haven’t asked for yet) so be it. Why should Sweden give assurances to protect a CRIMINAL???? Since when is a government obliged to support criminals?
in addition, in my view, CERTAINLY a rapist. I form my view on simple deduction – a thief runs from the police. Assange runs from the police. He is a thief. QED. Such proof is likely correct in 99.99 per cent of cases.
s
Sanjeev,
If you do not care to debate, and just want to pontificate (rant) on a specific topic, then you should bar comments on those posts!!
I find your case to be equally hypothetical and your “certainty” to be laughable. Since this is your pulpit, it is okay for you to go on about your POV, but don’t allow comments if you do not want a debate.
And, you want to ignore Wikileaks in the case against Assange, but bring it in when the comments are favourable to your POV – and quoting the MI5 director? And, how funny is that link – the head of a secret/spy organisation is obviously going to be against leaks!
I found this recent article so much more thoughtful and incisive:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/sweden-assange-idINL6E8JKBL020120821
Sweden is justifiably upset over the slur on its judicial system – especially when it cast by one like Ecuador – but, even this article comments critically about Sweden’s unwillingness to commit/guarantee to allow Assange to leave Sweden if found innocent of the rape charges, or after having served his punishment.
Sameer,
I read your post on FB – your post made me revisit some of my assumptions and positions, so thanks. One critical finding for me was that Assange left Sweden, after being asked to come in for questioning – so, technically and morally, he is a fugitive from the Swedish justice system. I had not realised this – I was under the assumption that Sweden had reopened the investigation after he had already left.
So, to that extent, Sweden may be unwilling to “give” on the guarantee issue.
Cheers
Supratim
As I indicated, I’ve posted at least 15 times on Assange, and in this particular case at least three other times. I’ve even cited two of these other references.
I bring Wikileaks in since I’m convinced that Assange’s actions adversely effect liberty across the world. His actions have almost certainly harmed people (we probably won’t hear about them since they’ve already been killed by shady regimes). Therefore even if US wants to extradite Assange, I’d have few or no qualms.
But the US doesn’t want to do so! So why does Assange bring it into the reckoning.
He confounds all kinds of issues. He must stick to the rape issue.
And I really don’t have time to explore all the details. All I know is that over 1500 people are extradited from UK each year on NORMAL criminal matters. Assange’s is just one of these cases. His running from trial is (in my view – but also in the opinion of anyone who watches thieves run away) certain proof of his guilt.
NO INNOCENT MAN will flee from justice. If justice is found to be flawed, the relevant country (Sweden, etc.) will face public opprobrium (including mine), and Assange will become a GENUINE martyr.
Even strategically (for his legacy) this is a very bad move.
s
“I bring Wikileaks in since I’m convinced that Assange’s actions adversely effect liberty across the world.”
Yet at other places in this post and two others about Assange, you claim that the two issues are separate and should be considered separately – so, which is it?
“NO INNOCENT MAN will flee from justice. If justice is found to be flawed, the relevant country (Sweden, etc.) will face public opprobrium (including mine), and Assange will become a GENUINE martyr.”
This is too trite, better is expected from you – this is not a movie, but real-life, where the state wields awesome power, especially certain states. In case you were unaware, many innocent black people serving life or awaiting death sentences have been freed over the past few years in the USA on DNA evidence coming to light – I am sure they would be delighted by your stance, having already been in prison for 15-30 years.
If Assange fears the leviathan, and chooses to run from it, I am not going to hold it against him – maybe, he prefers to be a free person living in Ecuador’s embassy, rather than be a Martyr living in a 8×10 solitary cell.
Let Sweden provide a guarantee of safe return, and then you can call him as many names as you want – until then, if he chooses to remain free rather than face a probability (however low) of extradition to the US, that is his choice.
We have seen what all your opprobrium against US drone attacks have achieved (tongue firmly-in-cheek) and so you will excuse Assange if he does not take up your offer of martyrdom.
“But the US doesn’t want to do so! So why does Assange bring it into the reckoning.”
Did you read the link I posted? USA is preparing to file charges on OSA and preparing an extradition request in a Virginia Court, which would . Do read, instead of creating your own alternate reality!!
“Even strategically (for his legacy) this is a very bad move.”
This is your POV – currently, he is a folk hero, and the rape charges are widely seen to be part of a conspiracy. So, his legacy seems to be alright, if you ask me!
cheers
Supratim
This is getting very hard to argue. No justice system is perfect, and not the American. I’ve agreed with Somnath’s arguments against the confinement of Vikram Buddhi. However, EACH such matter (“many innocent black people serving life or awaiting death sentences have been freed over the past few years in the USA on DNA evidence coming to light”) has to be considered on its own merit.
The problem is that neither you nor I have time, capacity, inclination, or authorisation to study ANY of these cases in detail. So we can only form opinions based on hearsay, not DIRECT examination of evidence.
Why not let the court determine the truth in Assange’s case.
I haven’t ever heard of ANY sovereign state “guarantee” anything to anyone else. This is ridiculous, to expect a sovereign state to “guarantee” Assange’s “safe return”. Of course, if the US wants to extradite him then NEW information will need to be considered. Sweden is not anyone’s brother or sister who can make promises. It is a sovereign nation, and no sovereign nation makes promises (treaties) to individuals. If such a promise were made it won’t be worth the paper it is written on. NO one can bind a nation, not even treaties.
What is happening here is that you have formed a FIRM personal opinion about Assange’s innocence.
I have not formed ANY opinion about Assange’s guilt. All I’ve said is that GIVEN (this is known as Bayesian analysis) his COWARDLY behaviour, I’m convinced he is guilty.
I’m happy to be proven wrong.
My opinion matters for zilch.
Let the law decide.
So what’s the debate? You are convinced he is innocent. I’m saying let him be subject to the law.
I believe in the rule of LAW.
Despite being apparently a “classical liberal” you support the abrogation of the rule of law. This is a very dangerous position to take. Under ANY circumstance.
And Assange is a mere fool of no consequence. Never let down your basic principles for the sake of anyone. The law must be blind and apply to all.
s
Sanjeev
Why are you so sure that mr.Assange is guilty?
It is alleged by those women that where raped, and i sincerely believe that a person is only guilty if charged. But here you are ranting that he is nothing but a rapist! shocking.
The leaked documents did put many in harms way and just as you said some might have been also killed and we may never know. The devious activities of various govt that wave around the banner of democracy to wreck havoc on other nations, we know of because of the leaks. Many cables have been withheld as said by mr Assange in various Interviews, to protect people who maybe targeted.
Why is Sweden not giving a guarantee for his safety? Mr assange has no issues going to court, as he has stated many times over.
This is just a text book example of bullying on the global scale.
This is ridiculous. Please read what I’ve said.
YOU are not sure (can’t be sure) that he is innocent.
I’m NOT sure (can’t be sure) that he is guilty.
However, based on the FACT that he is running from the law, I’m CERTAIN that he is guilty. ONLY crooks flee from the law. I hold that as a first principle. That need not always come true, but it is a very good rule of thumb.
Even then, I’m NOT saying he should be jailed/shot.
I’m merely saying that he should subject himself to investigation/trial as appropriate.
Why are you trying to DESTROY the rule of law for the sake of someone who would likely be very unsafe to have as a guest in your own house? Just because YOU think he is innocent?
Let the law take its own course, and please stop defending someone who is FLEEING the law.
s
Sanjeev,
“What is happening here is that you have formed a FIRM personal opinion about Assange’s innocence. ”
No, that is not correct – this is merely an assumption on your part. I hold absolutely no opinion on whether Assang is innocent or guilty of the rape charges.
What I do hold a firm opinion on is that there is a low but significant (non-zero) probability of Assange either being extradited or handed over to the US on OSA charges by Sweden. The US authorities took a sledgehammer approach to even organisations like Paypal, which were seen to be helping to keep Wikileaks alive – so, I have significant indirect evidence, not just hearsay, to support my position.
Therefore, the crux of my argument has been that Assange was wrong to run away from questioning in Sweden on the rape charges – however, given US actions against Visa, Mastercard, Paypal re: Wikileaks and given the way the rape charges were first dismissed and then re-opened in Sweden, Assange was probably right to fear a conspiracy and for his freedom. Again, as per your basis, “hearsay” supports this conclusion significantly more than any other competing scenario.
The easy resolution for this case is for Sweden to simply guarantee that it will allow Assange to leave Sweden post questioning, if found innocent, or post sentencing and serving of the sentence, if found guilty. What is so hard about this? Does it hurt Sweden’s prestige to give this assurance?
You have focussed your drumbeat on one point – Assange ran away, so he is guilty and must return to face questioning and justice. I, OTOH, see a somewhat bigger picture and multiple shades of gray in this whole saga. Your POV is to ignore the bigger picture and just focus on the Swedish question.
Sure, I am a classical liberal, but I temper my acceptance of the state with both fear and scepticism – just because a state says it is in the right, does not make it so. And, to expect each individual to be capable or willing to challenge the might of the state is a foolish expectation. Sometimes, running away to live and fight another day is the right response. Against the leviathan.
Some case studies on extradition for you, Sanjeev:
1. The promises made by India to Portugal when the latter extradited Abu Salem to India – would not face death penalty or imprisonment for life, even if applicable under Indian laws.
2. The US’ refusal to extradite Warren Anderson to India – a fugitive from the law in India, wanted in a case where hundreds of people were killed through negligence in his plant. (Equally or more heinous than rape charges, eh?)
3. UK’s refusal to extradite General Augusto Pinochet to Spain on the charge of multiple murders of Spanish Citizens in Chile and Spain – (equally or more heinous than rape charges, right? – yet the UK extradites thousands of people each year, eh?)
So, let us understand this – there is a clear political dimension to this whole case, too.
Cheers
Dear Supratim
Your conspiracy defence, like most conspiracy defences, is extremely weak.
1) Re: “US actions against Visa, Mastercard, Paypal re: Wikileaks”. Why did the US try to do so? Clearly because there was an ongoing risk of public release of classified documents. The US was within its rights to try to block such release. Regardless of the success or otherwise of this strategy, you can only oppose this if you are convinced (which I’m not) that Assange’s actions were harmless. Of course the US is entitled to pursue Assange. That is NOTHING to do with his rape case. They can (and in my opinion should) prevent any leakage of confidential information by anyone, and where appropriate, punish those who have deliberately put lives at risk. Let’s completely separate Wikileaks crimes from the rape issue.
2) “rape charges were first dismissed and then re-opened in Sweden”. I’m unfortunately not familiar enough with this, but I’d assume that the Swedish government, like any other government, has the right to re-open cases (recall your claim about some US cases reopened based on new DNA evidence). This is no argument to suggest a conspiracy.
I don’t see any right for Assange to get guarantees from sovereign states. Yes, a sovereign state CAN provide such guarantees (and Assange can well request for such guarantees), but the fact that Sweden doesn’t agree to provide such guarantee is no excuse to evade investigation.
True, “just because a state says it is in the right, does not make it so”. I’ll be the last person to suggest that all government action is valid! However, in this case there are two distinct crimes (or possible crimes) – Wikileaks that harmed innocents and rape. We are ill-advised to mix these two up.
From the arguments presented so far, I see no reason to believe that Assange is entitled to evade the rape investigation just because he MIGHT be pinged also for the Wikileaks one. Let him finish the rape case and close it once and for all. The second issue – wikileaks – would thereafter need to be judged on its own merit.
s
Sanjeev,
It is not “my” conspiracy theory! – but, one that is rampant, and one that I find some merit in considering.
RE: your other points -
1. Whether the US had the right to try to strangle Wikileaks’ funding or not is not the question I was raising – I was pointing out the means and the extent to which the US was prepared to go to secure their objectives, again I am not debating here whether those objectives were right or wrong. Given this background, it is reasonable to assume that the US would be prepared to go a long way to secure the custody of Assange, for trial and prosecution in the US.
And, Assange’s position is that US OSA laws do not apply to him and he will not be tried by the US authorities – and, he is prepared to go equally far to evade their custody.
2. Please note there is NO equivalence between the US actions on freeing INNOCENT people on NEW evidence being presented/discovered and the Swedish decision to simply re-open the case, without any new evidence – just a change of “decision” by the Prosecutor’s office. Sure, they have this right, but the decision smells.
3. Extradition cases, in general, have a different body of case law, which applies – normal criminal jurisprudence/case law may not apply. In this specific case, Assange, an Australian citizen, is being extradited from UK to Sweden – despite many requests, Australia did not provide consular support to its own citizen, which was very peculiar to say the least. Why would Australia not provide any support to its own citizen, even if it is only to provide a basic legal service and say surrender to the UK authorities?
Given Sweden’s general record on political refugees and humanitarian rights (exemplary), why is it so reluctant to guarantee safe passage back? Such an easy resolution to the standoff. Is the US pressure that huge? That would be the obvious deduction.
So, too many shades of gray in this case, to argue simplistically that he must be guilty because he is hiding.
Cheers
1. Re: “US would be prepared to go a long way to secure the custody of Assange, for trial and prosecution in the US”. Sure, but the idea that US will plant two women to do so is beyond ridiculous. This is the most circuitous and unnecessary path to the goal (even assuming US had this goal).
2. OK, so the Swedish decision to reopen the case smells, but so what. Prosecutors constantly bumble. That’s why we have courts. Remember the case against former IMF chief. That flopped in court. Prosecutors are always being stupid. But that’s not good reason to avoid investigation. This is just the way we humans are: imperfect. We must let the law takes its course.
Once again, I don’t see any reason to give credence to stupid conspiracy theories.
There may we be some bumbling fools involved, such as the Swedish prosecutors, there may well be some stupid CIA operative who wants to plant false evidence through rape allegations, etc.
But NONE of this is cause enough to avoid the investigation.
Yes, the situation here is that Assange feels he is guilty of something. What exactly it is no one knows. But he clearly knows he is going to be in jail somewhere in this world for his crimes. He therefore wants to escape accountability. He wants freedom to be a criminal. Sorry, but in my book, such freedom doesn’t exist.
Let him go through all the judicial hoops and let his case be tested. Even if he is found guilty he can appeal.
Just recently an infamous Indian doctor Jayant Patel was released after appeal.
Justice is generally blind. And slow.
That’s not good enough reason to avoid the justice system.
The rule of law must apply to EVERYONE.
s
Sanjeev,
1. You are making assumptions again. Never wrote that US planted the women to make rape charges. Those charges pre-date the release of the documents by Wikileaks. But, what is interesting is that the Prosecutor declined to prosecute those charges prior to the disclosure of the documents, and then changed her mind post disclosure. So, it is entirely probable, given the close relationship between US and Sweden, that there was a friendly chat that happened on the case.
2. Another assumption or motherhood statement: “Yes, the situation here is that Assange feels he is guilty of something.” How do you arrive at this view?
3. So, if we are agreed that the Swedish prosecutor’s office bumbled and it smells – why can’t Sweden then come to the table with clean hands by offering a safe passage back to Assange? Such a simple solution – after that, Assange can no longer hide under any conspiracy theories, right?
“The rule of law must apply to EVERYONE.” How trite – yet you can not explain why the US would not extradite Warren Anderson. And, why Jack Straw stopped the extradition of Pinochet to Spain, despite a House of Lords ruling that he could be tried in Spain and he had no immunity.
What is good for the goose …….
Cheers
Supratim
We must move on. Neither you and I are the parties involved. Neither you or I are well placed to know the details.
I’m arguing on general principles, and you are insisting on bringing in the specifics. I question your capacity, sitting in Mumbai, without access to the detailed files, to know why a prosecutor revised his/her earlier decision. The prosecutor could be a fool, could be a genius, could have discovered new info, could have somehow been “influenced” by US (how???? threat of death? threat that US would kill the prosecutor’s children???).
You’ve chosen to support the conspiracy-theory-compatible option. That’s your business, not mine. I allow a significant role for good faith, particularly at junior levels (eg prosecutors). That you someone think that US can “influence” independent officers of a justice system indicates that you are not aware how fiercely most officials in the west protect their professional integrity. Sweden is not India where a bribe can buy out the average prosecutor.
The idea that just because the law failed in some cases should exonerate everyone else who follows has already been discussed. Are we saying that all jails should now be opened because the law failed in one case?
On general principles your arguments have no legs. On wishful thinking they may well have legs. You are welcome to your world of fiction.
s
Sanjeev,
“We must move on. Neither you and I are the parties involved. Neither you or I are well placed to know the details. ”
You are party right – I did try to get as much of the details available in public domain, as I could. Obviously, there will be more behind the scenes not available to us as commentators.
“I’m arguing on general principles, and you are insisting on bringing in the specifics. ”
I find the general principles that you are using to be flawed. I find using specific examples to clarify general principles a very useful tool, both to examine general principles (which are abstract in nature) and to understand specific, similar instances in the past (experience as a guide).
We can certainly all be absolutists in all cases and circumstances, without trying to understand if there is anything extenuating – but, that usually leads to fanaticism and dictatorships, does it not?
Cheers
I wasn’t planning to discuss this further but I’m startled by your comment: “I find the general principles that you are using to be flawed”.
Which principle is flawed? That’s quite a serious criticism.
Examples of the general principles I used were:
a) Freedom comes with accountability
b) The law must apply uniformly to everyone (rule of law)
c) Let the justice system work, then judge the integrity of the process
d) Someone who hides from the justice system generally has something to hide (e.g. murderers generally don’t like being investigated by the police).
s
I’d like to add one more principle: the right to a trial. That right is not on offer to those killed by drone attacks, but is being given to Assange. And he refuses to take it.
Sanjeev,
General principle — well, I was mainly talking about point d : “Someone who hides from the justice system generally has something to hide”
I disagreed with this point saying that everyone who runs or hides may not be guilty (although you are free to presume so). They may be acting under other equally valid impulses – such as fear of the system or the state.
You then modified your statement to say 99% of people who flee are guilty – my whole discussion/multiple posts were then to show you that there were sufficient exculpatory circumstances to consider Assange as part of this 1%.
But, there is no one so blind as one who will not see – so, I rest my case.
Although, I laugh at your point b, too – Reality seems to be so different.
============
What about drone attacks? And what is the equivalence to Assange? People being targeted in drone attacks are enemy combatants — while innocents have been killed as well in these drone attacks, are you saying that we are not allowed to kill the enemy in a war? But, must offer them a trial?
Seriously?
Cheers!
Supratim
a) You said you dispute general principles, but are you able to confirm that WITHOUT any knowledge of details, without knowledge of the relevant laws, without knowledge to prove otherwise, a person who runs from justice is generally NOT a criminal? Is that your general principle? Would you enact that into law – that everyone who runs from the justice system and thus escapes scrutiny is innocent? (and I’m not talking about the presumption of innocence, but about someone who has been charged and is being investigated for crime)
b) I explained at great length the HUGE difference between war and police action. The leisurely pressing of a button somewhere in Texas, against someone in Afghanistan, is a police action, not war. There is NOT THE SLIGHTEST evidence that any war is underway against USA. This is police action. US is acting as a policeman, but a lawless policeman.
s
Sanjeev,
1. Please not assume things I have not said. There are exceptions to rules, especially in the social space – and I was pointing that out about Assange. From there to leap to the conclusion that I would always consider flight to be a sign of innocence is ludicrous to say the least.
We are not talking about a mathematical model here where an exception would make the model void.
2. I am not sure where you have explained what you say you have explained. But the US is at war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan – it has troops and machines of war posted there, and it is an occupying army. The US Congress authorised the military engagement of the US Armed Forces in Afghanistan post 9/11. This authorisation has not yet been cancelled by the Congress.
The Taliban and the Al Qaeda on their parts have declared war against the United States (among others) multiple times. What more evidence do you need? The Pakistani Taliban, post the re-opening of the fuel route through Pakistan, reiterated its determination to fight the US and Pakistani troops. Please google. Very recently there were suicide bomber attacks against the US troops in Kabul.
And, you say “There is NOT THE SLIGHTEST evidence that any war is underway against USA” – are you delusional?
The Americans have been using the drones against Talibani targets in the border range betwen Afghanistan and Pakistan, instead of sending in troops – so, a technology advancement, protecting American lives.
So, what police action are you talking about???
Cheers
Supratim
Freedom with accountability is indeed a mathematical model. Every aspect of freedom is automatically constrained by accountability. The general principle stands. You have yourself agreed. So your contest was not with my general principles.
Your claim is that Assange is the 1 per cent. I deny your knowledge and capacity to make that claim. There will always be innocents caught in the justice system. Their ONLY option is to let the system run its course. Particularly when no mala fide is self-evidently on offer. I wouldn’t expect Assange to go through Hitler’s “justice system”. But Swedish? Sorry, you are surely mistaken to make your feelings and emotions the basis of a judgement about Assange’s right to flee Sweden. The subsequent consequences of his going to Sweden are irrelevant. One can’t conflate two issues into one. That’s sure to destroy any chance of finding the truth.
In sum, 1) the general principle I argue for is valid, and 2) your claim of exceptionalism for Assange is not sufficiently proven (e.g. is Sweden Nazi Germany, even Zimbabwe, or Burma? Even India?).
Re: the other issue, just because some stupid people sitting in US senate/HR call something “war” doesn’t make it war. Of course the Taliban will kill people who enter their land. I would too. The Al Queda attacked US. To the extent US had a ground for war that was against Osama bin Laden. He is LONG DEAD NOW.
There is no further case for “war” against any single person in Afghanistan. Some fools in US calling it war doesn’t make it so. I haven’t seen any frigate from Afghanistan go and attack New York yet.
And re: police action, I’ve explained at length at: http://sabhlokcity.com/2012/08/whats-common-between-my-condemnation-of-assange-the-rapist-and-obamas-murderous-drone-attacks/
Do examine that carefully. I have repeated similar arguments in the past. I seen no reason to sanctify US policemen’s murder of suspected criminals as retaliation for act of war (calling themselves “soldiers” doesn’t make them less of policemen). This is a racket. It is NOT war by any stretch of imagination. The US MUST leave and go home.
s
Sanjeev,
Your egotism is now showing: “Re: the other issue, just because some stupid people sitting in US senate/HR call something “war” doesn’t make it war. ”
If you are going to set yourself up as the all-knowing, all abiding, all deciding sage, then there can be no debate.
We are so far off on this particular issue that is no further point in my adding anything here. I consider the US to be at war against the Taliban and vice-versa – so, the use of the drone against the Taliban is both effective and efficient.
Sanjeev,
You say “Freedom with accountability is indeed a mathematical model. Every aspect of freedom is automatically constrained by accountability. The general principle stands. You have yourself agreed. So your contest was not with my general principles.”
Ummm, no it is NOT a mathematical model, the way I (and I presume most people) understand maths.
Freedom with accountability is a PHILOSOPHICAL Model, a very strong philosophical or psychological model, based upon theory of incentives and human rational behaviour. But, it is NOT a mathematical model, and to try to ascribe the same kind of rigour to this model as a mathematical one is doomed to fail, ab initio, in my opinion.
And, if you do not accept the above, why don’t you define Freedom for me like a fundamental item would be defined in physical science – say, force or mass or momentum or acceleration.
Therefore, a General Principle in The theory of Freedom has much more stretch and complexity than say Newton’s second law of motion.
Then you say “Your claim is that Assange is the 1 per cent. I deny your knowledge and capacity to make that claim. There will always be innocents caught in the justice system. Their ONLY option is to let the system run its course.”
Your denial of my capacity is a non sequitur. I, at least, seem to have done more research on this topic than you have – you did not even know the issue of the prosecutor’s office. While, I am not claiming to be an all-knowing sage, like you, I have tried to parse the data points that is available on the public domain and have refined my position on Assange, on that basis. THAT is Bayesian analysis, too or conditional probability, as others may know it.
Further, you may want him to suffer in the justice system despite being an innocent, but as an innocent, rational person with means, he took a different path – he is offering a middle path, which serves both justice and assuages his fear – but, this eminently doable middle path is being spurned. I have to wonder why.
Cheers
Dear Supratim
I wish this was about egotism. It is about the facts of the case. You claim on the one hand that the US is capable of undue force against Assange (for which you provide no robust justification), but on the other hand you are supine enough to accept a BLATANT falsehood by USA – that there is any basis of its ONGOING war against the Taliban/ Whatever basis existed (and I FULLY agree it existed) DISAPPEARED after Osama bin Laden was (belatedly) killed.
Today the US is NOT entitled to be in Afghanistan. It is an aggressor. An enemy on their soil whom Taliban is FULLY ENTITLED to kill.
US has long overstayed its justified presence. It is no longer conducting a defence of liberty, but showing its dangerous underbelly as a global bully. Let US defend its borders and if Al Queda attacks let it retaliate. There is NO ground for endless war.
I am offering an OPEN AND SHUT case of the misuse of power by USA (just as it did in the case of Vikram Buddhi). I do not defend the USA blindly (as you are doing in this case, by acquiescing quite docilely, without ANY questioning I may say) or any claims its parliament may make. If these claims are false, stupid and mischievous, I will say so.
The test is of the OBVIOUS TRUTH. The obvious truth is that the US has NO BASIS for its troops to be in Afghanistan today. Those who claim the US is at war are living in some truly absurd delusion.
If you show me ONE piece of evidence of the Taliban’s war against America, I’ll review this claim. That they are killing American soldiers who are walking on THEIR LAND, is not ground to assert that Taliban are at war.
Let Americans come to India and see what happens.
And would Americans allow armed Chinese soldiers to walk their soil IN USA?
US is the aggressor at worst and policeman at best.
s
Freedom with accountability is indeed a precise mathematical model (more precise than that). In DOF I’ve extensively shown why. Please do read it. It is linked with the basic laws of physics. All our thoughts/muscle movements, etc. Everything has its own action/reaction. And thereafter our thoughts, our actions, our character. The fact that I’m writing something (in freedom), leads to direct consequences. I’m accountable for what I say. And so on.
NOT ONE act or thought of ours is without its own accountability. That’s why I call it the loop of accountability. And have shown it in excruciating detail in DOF.
The other bit – Assange. You just agreed that you don’t have all the info. You are merely making a big deal based on your scan of newspapers. I’m saying this is a CRIMINAL matter. Why defend anyone? Why are you putting your reputation at stake to defend someone who might well be a rapist? What’s the benefit you get from such an action?
My assumption therefore is that you are emotionally invested into this issue. Something is preventing you from stepping back as an objective observer and seeing the facts for what they are. You wish that Assange is right. So you say he is justified.
But have you thought that in saying this, you are essentially defending someone about whom you DON’T know anything?
Even brothers/ sisters can turn out to be criminals. Even knowing someone is not good enough justification for them to hide from the justice system.
So I can only see this as an aberration driven by emotionalism. I’d urge you to step back and think of this as an objective observer, from first principles. Each of the principles I suggested are classical liberal principles. There is no way for you to prove to me that Assange is innocent. Only a court can do that. So step back. Don’t get emotionally drained unnecessarily.
s
Some of your positions, Sanjeev, are so weird that even though I was not meaning to, I am compelled to respond.
RE: USA in Afghanistan – It seems we are agreed that the US had a legitimate cause in invading Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban/AQ, which were based there.
You draw a line based on OBL’s death – however, other equally violent, nihilistic and radical leaders exist in the Taliban today, who have vowed to wage continuing war against the US. And, this is not tied to their presence in Af. It is just because, in their world view, the US is the Great Satan, which must be annihilated.
First, is it your position then that the US must withdraw its troops without killing these enemies, return to the US and instead wait for them to attack the US again, before returning to Af?
Second, while the US is an occupying army, by defintion, the locally elected government led by Karzai has also been quite anxious that the US not leave until the local forces are ready and capable to fight the Talibs.
Third, a vast majority of the Taliban are not Afgans, but foreigners – so, your argument about their “rights” also fall flat – overwhelming majority are Pakistani, Saudi, Yemeni and Sudanese. The local Afgan villagers are also now fighting against these foreigners.
Therefore, your so-called “Obvious truth” is probably only evident to you! I see no such obviousness.
However, given that again a majority of the attacks against US interests arise out of Pakistan, if it is your view that the US forces should leave Afghanistan and instead occupy Pakistan, which is the epicentre of these attacks, then I am willing to consider that view.
Cheers
Pl. see http://sabhlokcity.com/2012/08/19-people-attacked-usa-on-911-usa-has-killed-20000-afghans-is-this-not-enough/
Tired… so just gonna troll :p
Regardless of anyone’s feeling about “Open Government,” Assange is just a Hacker who illegally hacked into the government. An briber who paid military personal off for “dirty secrets.” An Extortionist who tried to use his position as leverage against a rape case. A coward who kept running around the world to escape his just punishment. An ass who finally gets caught and then demands his followers give him bail money… who uses said money to AGAIN evade his rape charges.
This is a VERY bad man…. but he is INSANELY charismatic.
Now if Julian was accused of raping a few children, would his charisma be able to get people screaming “Surprise Sex is fun!” Would we have Pedophile-Advocate groups forming left and right? I believe he could pull it off… I believe that people are that engrossed in him that child rape would not be enough to make them think less of him.
There are even serious bitches who want to remove the “closed trial” system that only PROTECTS the women who were allegedly raped. (While I’ll spit on any neo-feminist who won’t afford the accused the same right until after the trial [Plaster his face on a wall if he is found guilty... but vengence is just disdainful]; the justice system should not be putting one of the most sensitive crimes in the peering eyes of the public.)
Hell, the whole “If she consented to taking off her clothing it isn’t rape” attitude is absurd. Both man and woman reserve the right to revoke consent at any given time.
Both man and woman reserve the right to say “No, I do not want you to do that”
A WOMAN reserves the right to NOT get pregnant and it is NOT FUNNY if you ignore this right. Hell, a woman reserves the right to NOT take birthcontrol due to the MANY associated health risks; a woman reserves the right to NOT get an abortion due to the many associated health risks.
The justifications people have for Julian are sickening. I’ll accept the conspiracy as a valid argument… but how many people belittle or EXCUSE rape is astonishing.
Rape is rape… it is INSANE how much we are NORMALIZING rape, almost excusing it… but until the day comes that rape is legalized, Rape is a CRIME.
I am certainly not accepting rape as defensible, although I make lots of distinctions between stranger rape and acquaintance rape and date rape and husband / wife rape. The first is obviously more “heinous” as a premeditated act of violence…but all those distinctions are for a different venue. The question here is “should Assange give himself up to authorities?” IMO, he would be insane to relinquish his freedom to clear his name. Why can’t he be tried in absentia, but with the modern technology of computer web cams?
Those who insist that he MUST give himself up are implying that governments always do the right thing when they have an axe to grind. In my mind…not so much! Surely Assange isn’t the first person to be accused of something as a pretext to getting control. If it is really about JUSTICE…let the court of public opinion turn against him if he stands trial and is permitted to defend himself. I think you will be surprised…remember OJ? He was found wanting in the court of public opinion even if he wasn’t found guilty in the courtroom…