Skip to main content

View Diary: Rebels Still Stand Alone (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Julian Assange is a rape fugitive. (0+ / 0-)

    Why are you supporting his run from standing trial?

    •  Do you really think they'd have bothered about him (3+ / 0-)

      if he weren't so involved with Wikileaks? If he weren't responsible for massive public embarrassment of multiple governments, including that of the United States? If he hadn't provided the venue for worldwide exposure of US war crimes?

      If he was just a nobody who'd done nothing - nobody would have cared. Or, likely, ever known anything about it.

      That's the trouble with taking on the Establishment on an international stage: they'll find a way to get you. Whatever it takes. However long it takes. However deep they have to dig. And then they'll screw you without pity or remorse.

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 08:29:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I'm sorry.tss a g (0+ / 0-)

        He's involved in Wikileaks.  Therefore, he geet-out-of-rape card!  Lie back and take it, girls, he's too important to stand trial!

        And see what I wrote below to the other respondant.

        And oh, the damned irony of your sig while defending a rape fugitive.

    •  Do you know the specifics of the accusation? (0+ / 0-)

      We aren't talking about US law here, so it's rather sloppy to throw out the term "rape" without specifying the legal definition being applied. You can't even assume that what he's being accused of would qualify as a crime in the US, assuming that the whole thing isn't simply a set up by intelligence agencies. Entrapment by sexual encounter is a standard weapon in the arsenal of such organizations.

      If Assange is a sexual predator he should face the music. It's curious though, that these accusations only emerged after he and wikileaks had thoroughly exposed and embarrassed the powers that be.

      A degree of skepticism is in order.

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 10:32:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sweden's definition of rape is (0+ / 0-)

        more lax than in most first world countries.  For example, a few years back there was a case in Sweden where a young teen was gang-raped by three men.  Only the first could be charged with rape because she gave up fighting after being beaten into submission by him.  But even in Sweden, it's illegal to wait until a girl falls asleep to F* a girl in ways that she spent the entire evening refusing.  But he's damned lucky again that the charges are in Sweden.  The max sentence there is a measely 2 years.  If he pulled the same thing in DC, it'd be 20 years.

        Three British courts have already ruled that it'd be a crime in the UK - including the British supreme court.

        Multiple Swedish courts have already ruled against him.  First a court granted the request of the prosecutor for an arrest warrant.  Assange appealed.  All of the evidence was heard by the Svea Court of Appeals.  His attorney defended him.  He lost.  He appealed to the Swedish supreme court.  He lost there too..

        There's a damned lot of evidence that Mr. "Women's Brains Can't Do Math" did do what he's accused of, and it's sickening to see so many people automatically side with the accused because they like the guy, and so clearly he's being set up by lying sluts!  Which is what people like you always do in rape cases.

        And hey, lets see if I've got the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy(TM) down pat.  For reasons only beknownst to them, they can only nab Assange from Sweden, not the the UK, or any of the vast numbers of far-easier countries that Assange regularly globetrots to.  No, it has to be Sweden.  Let's just take that as a given for some Unknown Shadowy CIA Reason.  Now, Assange was applying to live in Sweden (having declared it his "shield" because they have the best whistleblower and anti-extradition protections in the world) when the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy decided, "Instead of waiting until we're ready to nab him for our charges, since he's planning to live here, wouldn't it be so much more fun to frame him for a crime?  Yeah, and let's pick a crime with one of the lowest conviction rates, for which his fans will automatically defend him!  Let's not only do that, but let's frame him for rape but use a case that involves the women having consented to certain acts but not others, have them do delays and other actions that could potentially hurt their case, etc, just like in real rape situations, where victims don't live their lives as though they're about to be judged in a trial, instead of a phony "knife to the throat" hollywood-style rape case." Why?  Because the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy just rolls that way, stop asking questions!  Now, let's install our CIA Plant, Ms. Ny, to prosecute him - because of course, we at the CIA have infiltrated the top levels of all of the major governments' of the world's judicial systems just for this purpose.  But let's have her take several weeks to do so, and let's let the news totally leak out during the time that they're getting ready to arrest him so that Assange can run.  And let's just let him flee the country, and not tell Sweden so that they can stop him.  And then when he jumps bail in the UK after losing his last appeal and hightails it to a friendly embassy, let's tell nobody then either!

        Is this how it went down, in your mind?  Great job, Shadowy CIA Conspiracy. Who's heading the CIA these days, Bozo the Clown?

        And concerning your "thiming" statement, wikileaks has been publishing against the US since 2007.  How exactly is that suspicious timing?  And FYI, the guy has a LONG history with women.  I'm amazed it took him this long to get in trouble with the law.  He's even been accused of stuff by other whistleblowers.  Check out what Heather Brooke - probably the foremost whistleblower in modern UK history - say he said and did to her.

        Can we stop supporting rape fugitives here for a minute just because they did something good in the past, and accept the fact that people CAN and often DO do both good and bad things in their lives?

        •  I don't see anyone supporting "rape fugitives" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          4kedtongue

          What I see is a legitimate concern about the fact that the US Government has been gunning for Assange and avoiding being stampeded into an assumption of his guilt on a completely distinct criminal charge.

          At this point I'd remind you that although he has been accused of a serious criminal offense, he has been convicted of nothing. While you describe him as a fugitive, you yourself admit that he has actually been fighting this out through the judicial system. That makes your description something less than accurate. A fugitive is one who is fleeing legal proceedings, not one who is engaged in them.

          Apparently, you are already convinced of his guilt. You're entitled to your opinion on that but you are not entitled to demand that others act on it in lieu of a judicial finding of guilt. In US law there is a presumption innocence prior to such a finding. You're free to ignore that principle if you like but no one is obliged to follow your example.

          As I said above, if Assange is guilty he should face the music. At present he has not been tried, much less convicted. Until he has been, I'm not going to assume his guilt.

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 11:29:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh yes. (0+ / 0-)

            So "gunning for Assange" that when Assange's attorney was lying to the Swedish prosecutor's office saying that Assange was getting ready to come in, while Assange was leaving the country, that they believed him and were shocked when he didn't come in (you can read the leaked text records between Hurtig and Ny).  Then they totally fell for it again when Hurtig said Assange was getting ready to come back, while in reality Assange was setting down roots in the UK and not at all preparing to travel back.  Then when Assange lost his last day in court, broke house arrest and jumped bail, heading straight into the embassy of an anti-western country headed by a guy who had previously praised him, nobody stopped him or warned the UK.

            Getting the picture?  Nobody Was Even Watching Him.  That's how much they care about him.  The world does not revolve around Julian F*ing Assange, and he does NOT deserve a Get-Out-Of-Standing-Trial-For-Rape card.

            While you describe him as a fugitive, you yourself admit that he has actually been fighting this out through the judicial system.

            No, he WAS fighting it out through the judicial system.  He is no longer.  He is a bail jumper hiding out in an embassy to avoid arrest for a crime that five courts, including two national supreme courts, have ruled that he needs to stand trial for.  That makes him a fugitive.  And two of the courts rulings were specifically on the strength of the evidence that he did in fact commit the crimes in question, with his attorney there defending him.

            He IS a rape fugitive.  This is not a matter for debate.  It's the simple facts of the case.  He is a fugitive from a rape charge and three other sexual offense charges.  Quit supporting a rape fugitive's run from the law.

            •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              4kedtongue

              You can call him a fugitive if you like. You can call him a fugitive from a charge of rape if you like. Calling him a "rape fugitive" is sheer demagoguery on your part. Not to mention that its literal meaning is the opposite of what you intend.

              I come from a place where those accused of this crime often didn't even make it to trial. Mobs who, like yourself, assumed their guilt would string them up after brutal and sadistic tortures. Usually such mobs were egged on by those who had political agendas. So there's really no chance that I'm going to fall in with your extra judicial assumption of Assage's guilt.

              If you want to claim that Assange's activities with Wikileaks are a matter of complete indifference to the US government go right ahead. People familiar with the actual record can judge that assertion for what it's worth.

              The fact that you wind up by accusing me of supporting Assange when all I've done is support the principle of innocent until proven guilty speaks for itself.

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:42:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry, but it *IS* what he is. (0+ / 0-)

                He is a fugitive from standing trial for the crime of rape.  He is a rape fugitive.  Deal with it.

                Extrajudicial?  It is Assange who is refusing to stand trial.  He's been in five court battles in two countries and lost every last one of them.  And instead of accepting that he lost, he ran from the law.  Extrajudicial?  The judicial system is the one trying to try him.  He's running from it.  You're the one opposing the judicial system here by backing his run from damned serious charges.

                And I'm sorry, but how exactly do you explain the fact that nobody bothered to even tell Sweden or the UK what he was doing or to stop him?  Nobody was even watching him, it's as simple as that.

                "the principle of innocent until proven guilty "

                No, the principle is "innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW".  Assane is the one derailing this principle and he rightfully deserves any condemnation coming his way for doing so.

                •  Oh for God's sake (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  4kedtongue

                  A "rape fugitive" would be a fugitive from a rape, not a fugitive from an accusation of rape. Deal with it.

                  Your assumption of Assange's guilt isn't based on a judicial finding of guilt. That makes your judgement extrajudicial. Deal with it.

                  Your apparent bias is such that you can't even recognize the incoherence of your language.

                  Where did I ever back "his run from damned serious charges"? I did no such thing and you can't point to where I did. This is a complete fabrication on your part. Deal with it.

                  No, the principle is "innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW".  Assane is the one derailing this principle and he rightfully deserves any condemnation coming his way for doing so.
                  This is absurd on its face. Are you claiming that the presumption of innocence only applies in the courtroom? Does that mean that you feel entitled to assume someone's guilt without any judicial finding? What's your point?

                  You're behaving like a demagogue. Deal with it.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 03:32:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry but now you're changing the English language (0+ / 0-)

                    for Assange too.  Let's see what we get when we Google "rape fugitive", shall we?

                    Link

                     *  Chopper for rape fugitive
                     *  SEPTA police nab rape fugitive
                     *  Makeshift camping gear 'of rape fugitive' discovered - Scotland ...
                     *  ROUNDUP: US child rape fugitive to be extradited from Hong Kong
                     *  UPDATE: Gang rape fugitive cuffed while on toilet - Beaumont ...
                     *  FBI — FBI Arrests Alleged Rape Fugitive in Honolulu
                     *  Loudon County child rape fugitive captured in Arizona » Knoxville ...
                     *  SEPTA police nab rape fugitive | News | Philadelphia City And Press
                     *  Texas Gang Rape Fugitive Recaptured
                     *  Harlingen child rape fugitive arrested in Willacy County : News ...
                     *  www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id... - Þýða þessa síðuDeila

                    Shall I go on to page 2?

                    But hey, after automatically supporting a rape fugitive's run from the law, I suppose changing the English language to support him is nothing small for you, eh?

                    Once again: Deal with it.  Assange is a rape fugitive.  A man on the run from the law for rape charges.  If he doesn't like people using the term for him, he shouldn't have become a rape fugitive.  It was his own damned choice every step of the way.

                    Your assumption of Assange's guilt isn't based on a judicial finding of guilt

                    I never made an assumption of guilt.  I'm simply pointing out the facts.  That he's a rape fugitive.  Which he is.  Now, the predominance of the evidence is that he raped a girl and molested another.  Which isn't my judgement, that's the judgement of all of the investigating officers, the prosecutor's office, the Svea court of appeals, and the Supreme Court.  Including a hearing of the evidence and  defense from Assange's legal team.

                    Where did I ever back "his run from damned serious charges"?

                    The whole implicit argument that he's being setup and that the girls are a bunch of lying sluts on the dole from the CIA.  At a time when DK is damning the media and townsfolk for automatically siding with the accused in the Steubenville case and acting all self-righteous, it's amazing to see people who lack the ability to see the hypocrisy for doing the same in the Assange case where they like the accused.

                    Are you claiming that the presumption of innocence only applies in the courtroom?

                    Presumption of innocence is a legal term, yes.  It means that the prosecutor must prove the subject's guilt in court to convict and sentence them rather than the subject having to prove their innocence (for example, if a guy was charged with robbing a store, the prosecutor would first have to prove that he was at the store, rather than making the guy prove that he was somewhere else).  It says not a damn thing about letting rape fugitives go and cheering them on while they run from the law.  You're twisting the legal principle beyond recognition.

                    Let's cut to the chase: are you or are you not going to keep lionizing Assange as he runs from rape charges?  Are you or are you not going to keep publicly treating his accusers as lying sluts trying to ruin an innocent man even while multiple courts have ruled that the predominance of evidence is that he committed rape?

                    •  You get your grammar from News Headlines?! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      4kedtongue

                      Well that explains a lot.

                      But hey, after automatically supporting a rape fugitive's run from the law, I suppose changing the English language to support him is nothing small for you, eh?
                      I've already corrected this misrepresentation. That you now repeat it makes it an intentional falsehood on your part. There's no point in engaging with serial liars.

                      Nothing human is alien to me.

                      by WB Reeves on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:52:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site