THE CO DISCOVERER OF HIV Prof. Luc Montagnier's Extended House of Numbers

Say what you want about Assange, but if I was him, I would be doing the exact same thing. Afterall, there is an extremely high chance that he could be extradited to the US, and that would be horrific. He almost certainly is bargaining with Sweden for assurances that he won't be extradited to the US, but unless he is offered such assurances, this is not such a crazy move.

A risky maneuver - after all Ecuador is not exactly a model state when it comes to Human rights and if they turn him down he would be jailed in London immediately.

As to the alleged rape charges: nobody ever claimed that Assange used any force or the two women in question did not consent or were underaged or anything like that. Assange was cleared from all charges and could leave Sweden legally. Only a few weeks and a couple of prosecutors later all of a sudden there was a bad crime and extradition was asked. Let us not forget that no judge in Sweden signed the arrest warrant and no charges have been pressed. I think Assange is perhaps a bit paranoid and Sweden might not send him to the USA but on the other hand he has been under arrest for over a year now while no charges have been pressed and no evidence has been presented. Everybody should become paranoid under such circumstances.

A dodgy guy booked on dodgy charges, no more, no less.

It took me exactly 5 minutes and 55 seconds to read this thread.

Uncanny. It must be about AIDS.

Can we talk about cars for a little while now?

i love the new alfa giulietta

"he could be extradited to the US, and that would be horrific"

It would ROCK. He's had a good long run now, but whatever happened to a world where you answer for your transgressions?? Maybe we've never lived in such a world, but we ought to. He should've known the risks when he got into this racket.

Zebonka12 wrote: "It would ROCK. He's had a good long run now, but whatever happened to a world where you answer for your transgressions??"

The problem is that the way the Americans might get him to answer for it are a denial of due process, and torture. Not to mention, he isn't an American citizen. He's an Australian citizen and never broke Australian law.

"Maybe we've never lived in such a world, but we ought to."

Not if they include what America wants to do to him, even though he's an Australian who never broke Australian law.

"He should've known the risks when he got into this racket."

Not this kind of risk.

Zebonka, whatever you think of him, surely you don't think he should be thrown to the wolves?

"Not this kind of risk"

When assessing risk, you don't factor in only the consequences that you think are appropriate according to your own values.
If I move to Mexico and decide to start a one man war against the cartels, should I disregard the possibility of winding up beheaded by some gangbanger just because I don't think it's fair that I should be beheaded while performing a civic duty? It is not outlandish to imagine that the USA would be pissed when you leak their information.

By all accounts Assange is possessed of some intelligence, but if he couldn't have seen this turn of events coming then he's as daft as a hippo on lithium.

"He's an Australian citizen"

That didn't seem to bother anyone when it was Van Nguyen's turn. I could've been physically sick over what they did to that poor kid, but again - the possible consequences must've crossed his mind before he embarked on his chosen course of action.

All I'm saying is that Assange has things to answer for. He should man up and stop hiding. I'm not naive enough to say that we live in a world where truth needs no defense, but I can't say I have a lot of faith in this man if he's not willing to go to court for his beliefs.

"Only a few weeks and a couple of prosecutors later all of a sudden there was a bad crime and extradition was asked"

I've known too many people that were assaulted for this topic to be palatable for any length of time. I understand that the presumption of innocence is there to protect us, but there's too much about the case that leaves me with the feeling that the man is not above board. The waft of self-interest that comes out of everything he says doesn't help matters.

"surely you don't think he should be thrown to the wolves? "

They still do that??

Zebonka - the difference between Van Nguyen (I was also physically sick when I heard about his fate)and Assange was: Van Nguyen did what is illegal anywhere in the world while almost nobody knows that not wearing a condome can be a "rape" crime in Sweden - even if the women do not press charges. I had never heard about something that ridiculous and would have never expected that this is possible in a country like Sweden. Even if you start with a condom and lose it in the "process" you can be guilty of a rape crime - would you like to have sex in Sweden? It is blatantly obvious that the charges are abused by the Swedish prosecutor: if he wanted to question Assange he could have done it while he was in Sweden or he could travel to England which is a member of the European Union, after all. It is about a friggin' condome, for God's sake!

You must not like Assange or agree with him but that a citizen can be hunted over such ridiculous charges with an international arrest warrant should make us wonder. If I were in his shoes and had heard all the "hang him" calls from American politicians I might be frightened, as well. He has been under arrest for almost 2 years now over really ridiculous charges while former dictator Pinochet (just to name an example) was NOT held by England and the arrest warrant by a Spanish prosecutor was declined.

I can see what you're getting at, with regards to the law itself. It's really more Assange's attitude and conduct that's bothered me the most. And I'm frankly never really satisfied with the process in any high profile legal proceedings, because the fact that it's a circus always overrides anything else.

[QUOTE]But from what I can tell, Sweden must be the best country in the world to live in. They seem to have their marbles together.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
Zebonka - the difference between Van Nguyen (I was also physically sick when I heard about his fate)and Assange was: Van Nguyen did what is illegal anywhere in the world while almost nobody knows that not wearing a condome can be a "rape" crime in Sweden - even if the women do not press charges. I had never heard about something that ridiculous and would have never expected that this is possible in a country like Sweden. Even if you start with a condom and lose it in the "process" you can be guilty of a rape crime - would you like to have sex in Sweden? It is blatantly obvious that the charges are abused by the Swedish prosecutor: if he wanted to question Assange he could have done it while he was in Sweden or he could travel to England which is a member of the European Union, after all. It is about a friggin' condome, for God's sake!

I don't understand how it makes a difference whether he wore a condom or not... I mean obviously it makes a difference to health/pregnancy, but legally? Is it always illegal? And if she asked him to wear one, then why didn't she just ask him not to have sex with her if she was gonna sue him for not wearing one? So weird.
You must not like Assange or agree with him but that a citizen can be hunted over such ridiculous charges with an international arrest warrant should make us wonder. If I were in his shoes and had heard all the "hang him" calls from American politicians I might be frightened, as well. He has been under arrest for almost 2 years now over really ridiculous charges while former dictator Pinochet (just to name an example) was NOT held by England and the arrest warrant by a Spanish prosecutor was declined.[/QUOTE]

One of the charges relating to condom use is that in full knowledge that she would not voluntarily agree to sex without one - and that she had not agreed to sex without one through a couple of his valiant tries the evening before - he penetrated her while she was sleeping without a condom the next morning. That would be criminal in any sane and civilized country in the world. How can that be consent at that moment? Surely there are stronger defenses for such a complex man and a complex case than resorting to trivializing and dismissing such obvious rights violating and assaultative sexual behaviour?

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
One of the charges relating to condom use is that in full knowledge that she would not voluntarily agree to sex without one - and that she had not agreed to sex without one through a couple of his valiant tries the evening before - he penetrated her while she was sleeping without a condom the next morning. That would be criminal in any sane and civilized country in the world. How can that be consent at that moment? Surely there are stronger defenses for such a complex man and a complex case than resorting to trivializing and dismissing such obvious rights violating and assaultative sexual behaviour?[/QUOTE]


She must have been one hell of a deep sleeper.

The claim is that she didn't sleep through the entire episode, only the initiation and however many moments it took her to get her bearings. There is nothing about the way she alleges the events unfolded that is not credible, and Assange as far as I know has never denied it either. His side, I believe, hinges on the fact that she grudgingly allowed it to continue once she awoke, something she also acknowledges. So your seeming implication that she was dishonest or the story was not credible is likely a little unfair.