Julian Assange

Yes, you know that I'm right and that's why you keep avoiding the question. Glad that you've finally conceded you're wrong!

What are you? 12?

She hasnt conceded anything

Medals all round for the brave souls who waste breath (IMO) attempting rational argument with the tinfoil-hatted disciples of the Blessed Julain

Always a problem stating that "This is a Police State," because the fact that you can say it is proof that it isn't.

If our legal and political system really was as described by these people, why are they all free to comment here and not rounded up in a gulag?

The women Assange assaulted had given him a place to stay during a conference. He thanked them by raping them. These women then had to go into hiding, fearing for their lives. Poor Assange.

ARDuke
Can you define a 'regime' for me?
Which countries on this planet do you consider not to be 'regimes?

What I'm saying is that I am concerned the charges are not legitimate.

And that is for the Swedish court to decide. Jurors in Sweden are capable of coming to a relevant decision after they have heard all the evidence, read the transcripts of that evidence and discussed it amongst themselves. If those jurors decide the charges are unfounded they will acquit. Otherwise they will find Assange guilty of those charges. It is for the Swedish legal system to decide.

JackyHolyoake I am not suggesting that Assange is above the law. If he has committed the crimes he's accused of then he should go to jail. What I'm saying is that I am concerned the charges are not legitimate. I am worried that they are trumped up charges, orchestrated by the regime to punish him for exposing their war crimes. I don't see how he would get a fair trial in any country that is friendly with the US. It would be like suggesting that a dissident against the Assad regime be given a fair trial in Iran. It just wouldn't happen.

You're prepared to think the worst of Assange, shouldn't you also be prepared to think the worst of the government? You have to admit it's very convenient for them, there's this whistleblower causing trouble for them, then suddenly these allegations appear and they have a perfect excuse to go after him. Yes, he might be guilty. But it's also possible the regime has cooked up these charges to try and silence him.

You don't get it do you?

I get that you seem to be suggesting that Assange should be given the status of someone who is above the law. With that opinion I strongly disagree. No-one is above the law of any country. It is not for me to try to control the legal systems of other countries. Those are what they are. For example, I deplore the American system of "plea bargaining". To me that is a corruption of any justice. But that is the system that is used in USA and so be it.

You don't get it do you? It doesn't matter what rights a person technically has on paper when a regime can abuse their power to persecute dissidents. People have the right to a fair trial in Russia as well, look how well that works out for anyone who talks negatively about Putin in anything louder than a whisper....

If you wouldn't trust the Assad regime, or Putin, to give a fair trial to a whistleblower then why can you trust the US or US-aligned countries to do so?

How would you ensure that a dissident gets a fair trial by the very regimes he has made an enemy of?

In England a fair trial is provided by relying on the integrity of the jurors to come to a decision based solely on the facts provided in evidence during the trial.

How would you ensure that a dissident gets a fair trial by the very regimes he has made an enemy of?

R0 has answered the question. She said:

"Men sexually assault women the world over. Many deny this, especially males." From this it appears to me she disagrees with you.

Julian Assange would face trial for sexual assault in Sweden; not Russia, Iran, China, USA or anywhere else. Sweden.

Smotheroffive he didn't sexually assault anyone. The allegations against him are trumped up, orchestrated by corrupt governments who want to punish him for the stuff he's leaked.

Presumably the person making this statement has incontrovertible evidence to support such an assertion.

Maybe that person should hand over such evidence to the relevant authorities.

Then again, maybe that person might want to read this legal article from 2012 instead:

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

Yes, you know that I'm right and that's why you keep avoiding the question. Glad that you've finally conceded you're wrong!

No.

The only reason I can think of that you are deliberately avoiding answering me question is because you know I'm right?

As you seem to have missed my question I will ask you again, and I will keep asking you until you answer.

As you seem to have missed my question I will ask you again, and I will keep asking you until you answer.

R0wantrees if this happened in Russia and a dissident got arrested you would think it was a legitimate arrest, not a trumped up arrest by the regime to silence a dissident?

Men sexually assault women the world over.
Many deny this, especially males.

So R0wantrees if this happened in Russia and a dissident got arrested you would think it was a legitimate arrest, not a trumped up arrest by the regime to silence a dissident?

ROwantrees you're right that while I can't say it with absolute certainty, it does very much look to be a case of trumped up charges rather than legitimate charges.

In your opinion which may be influenced by confirmation bias.

I accept that it's possible Assange could be guilty of what he's accused, but shouldn't be also consider the possibility that our government is lying about this, because they want to punish Assange for his whistleblowing? How much faith do you really have in politicians?

GabrielleNelson if a whistleblower leaked footage of Russian war crimes, and then Putin announced that there was allegations of sexual assault and the whistleblower needed to stand trial in Russia or a Russian-aligned country, you think they would be given a fair trial?

The issue here is whether you trust a corrupt government to give a fair trial to a dissident. In principle if the charges actually had proper merit to them, and he could be guaranteed a fair trial, I wouldn't object. But you would have to find a country willing to try him that can't be influenced by the US, and that's an incredibly short list.

ARDuke, you don't know that. I assume you weren't there. What makes you think these women are less to be believed than Assange, a man who skipped bail and whose cavalier attitude to other people's safety has probably cost lives?

When a woman alleges that she has experienced a sexual assault, far too often others assume right from the start that she's making it up, or she's out for revenge, or she's just hysterical and making a fuss about nothing very much. Hence our shamefully low conviction rate for rape.

Nothing I've read about the Assange case suggests to me that it's trumped up. I find the allegations all too credible and entirely in line with his approach to life. But as neither of us was there, it needs to go to a judge/jury who will hear all the evidence and they can come to a verdict.

Smotheroffive he didn't sexually assault anyone. The allegations against him are trumped up

Whilst it is important to always recognise the importance that a person should be presumed innocent, its pretty outrageous to assert that a man categorically did not sexually assault anyone.
You can't know this.
Its your opinion.