• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused of rape

1069 said:
Yeah, because the hoi polloi having access to all the facts is a bad, bad thing.
It's the duty of politicians to keep this dangerous information secret from the unwashed masses, who can't handle such knowledge.
Click to expand...

Under a democratic procedure....freedom of speech gives Assange the right to do that, and as citizens our lack of knowledge about this information should not be abused by the government under current laws and guidlines.

There is NO excuse for covering up innocent deaths.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
He still has a molestation and I think an assault warrant out now.
Click to expand...

Swedish authorities have cancelled an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on accusations of rape and molestation.
 
Redress said:
And now we enter the realm of conspiracy theories. If every one is in on it, then anything could be true, and Bush really could have been complicit in 9/11, and Obama really is a Nigerian Muslim, and the moon landing really was fake, and...
Click to expand...

Uh, show trials aren't in any way comparable to conspiracy theories.
 
kaya'08 said:
Under a democratic procedure....freedom of speech gives Assange the right to do that, and as citizens our lack of knowledge about this information should not be abused by the government under current laws and guidlines.

There is NO excuse for covering up innocent deaths.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. I thought the sarcasm inherent in my post was abundantly clear.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Oh I thought it was just the rape charge.

I'd sure like to see the details of this.
The story isn't enough.
Click to expand...

according to wikipedia
Julian Assange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In an interview with the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, the older of the two women who resides in Stockholm, told that both events started as voluntary sex but later turned into a molestation and rape respectively. She told that they had both left a detailed report of the events to the police, and that she didn't know the other woman nor Assange from before. She also denied that the claims were orchestrated by The Pentagon or any other party, saying that "the responsibility of what happened to me and the other girl lies entirely on one man's skewed view of women and problem to take a 'no' for an answer".
Click to expand...

however the link to the source is broken.
 
kaya'08 said:
Well, it wasn't. :)
Click to expand...

Not being a comic book villain, I don't, in earnest, refer to myself and the rest of the American public as "hoi polloi" nor "the Unwashed Masses".
Nor do I seriously call upon the authorities to protect us from ourselves by withholding facts, information, and knowledge from us.
 
1069 said:
Not being a comic book villain, I don't, in earnest, refer to myself and the rest of the American public as "hoi polloi" nor "the Unwashed Masses".
Nor do I seriously call upon the authorities to protect us from ourselves by withholding facts, information, and knowledge from us.
Click to expand...

We have a lot of far left/right members on DP who engage in hyperbole frequently, and i dont know you that well so >.<
 
1069 said:
Not being a comic book villain, I don't, in earnest, refer to myself and the rest of the American public as "hoi polloi" nor "the Unwashed Masses".
Nor do I seriously call upon the authorities to protect us from ourselves by withholding facts, information, and knowledge from us.
Click to expand...

Crap. And just when I started to think I wasn't alone...
 
1069 said:
How would it "discredit" him?
It's not about "his assertions".
Click to expand...

Yes it is. He is asserting that the U.S. military is up to no good in Afghanistan. Do you remember what happened to the credibility of Scot Ritter after he was allegedly linked to a web sex case? How about a the general that was accused of shop lifting that was in charge of Abu Ghraib? See a pattern here?


1069 said:
He has no particular credibility as a person.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. He puts forth documents that can not be disputed regardless of how they are obtained. If he or his site had no credibility whatsoever no one would even pay attention. It's obvious that is not the case.


1069 said:
It's the fact that he gets hold of and releases actual documents.
Click to expand...

And who is denying this? What's your point?


1069 said:
It's not like everybody's just been taking his word for everything, because he's got such a sterling reputation.
Click to expand...

As a journalist he has put forth information that cannot be disputed. That's as good as it gets in journalism.


1069 said:
I didn't even know, or particularly care, who he was.
Click to expand...

Who cares if you know him or what you think? :mrgreen:


1069 said:
When documents are leaked, I'm not worried about whether the person who leaked them has once been accused- or convicted- of sexual harassment.
I'm looking at the documents themselves to gauge their veracity.
When the pentagon and the US government themselves admit the documents are legitimate and valid, I'm certainly not going to be like, "Oh, but the guy who leaked them was once accused of sexual harassment. So I think I'll just forgive the government for whatever transgressions are exposed in these documents, no matter how incriminating they are."


Silly, silly. :roll:
Click to expand...


I have no idea what your point is in this paragraph. I don't recall saying anything about forgiving the government. What a bunch of goobly gock. if anything is silly, it's your previous paragraph.

As as par for the course you're missing the boat. I've had a security clearance and my father has had a top security clearance. I see nothing silly about any of this.
 
Redress said:
This was my thought. Let's face it, when he is arrested, there will be a trial, and he will have a chance to clear his name. That is what trials are for. It's a serious charge and has to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

You really need to come back to the real world. That's how it works on paper but not always reality. The innocent before proven guilty is a bunch of hogwash. If that was the case why do many people languish in jail awaiting trial? Why do people get off because they were able to buy the best defense money can buy (O.J) when some poor smock that can't afford good counsel is SOL?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
And now we enter the realm of conspiracy theories. If every one is in on it, then anything could be true, and Bush really could have been complicit in 9/11, and Obama really is a Nigerian Muslim, and the moon landing really was fake, and...
Click to expand...

That's not fair. It was merely pointed out it's only logical that if the charges are trumped the government is in on it. It's only logical.
 
1069 said:
Perhaps it's just my personal bias, but the idea of sexual misconduct on the part of youngish, affluent men never strikes me as unlikely or far-fetched.
Click to expand...

Yes it is your personal bias. Sexual misconduct spans all kinds of socio economic groups. Sure hope your not on the jury of a young affluent male that is accuses of sexual misconduct!
 
EnigmaO01 said:
That's not fair. It was merely pointed out it's only logical that if the charges are trumped the government is in on it. It's only logical.
Click to expand...

NO, actually it is highly illogical. It's wishful thinking with no shred of backing evidence. Which is more likely, that the government engaged in a ham handed and poorly executed attempt to get some guy arrested and convicted for an entirely unrelated crime that would have little effect on whether WikiLeaks continues to operate, or that since he is in the news, Assange had something happen that happens far too often and some one tried to take advantage of that fact, probably for personal gain. Which one seems more likely?

Sorry, but there is no logic to your position.
 
Wikileaks and it's founder need to be shutdown. Period.
 
Why should we immediately and automatically assume the two complainants are lying and "trying to take advantage" of Assange for "personal gain" because he's "in the news"?

For all we know, they are both telling the truth and sexual impropriety occurred.
The fact that the charges have been dropped only means that investigators decided there was not enough evidence to pursue them, or that the complainants backed out, possibly under intimidation, or when they realized their complaints were instant international news.
We don't know the man personally, any more than we know the complainants.

It seems disingenuous to automatically jump to the conclusion that they are lying.
It's just as likely that they're not, and something inappropriate happened.
If they were, the charges probably would not be dropped, because they'd be sticking to and trumping up their stories.
Similarly, if it were a government set-up, the charges would not be dropped.
The very fact that the charges have been dropped after being filed leads me to believe there was something to it; possibly not enough to convict, but something.
Most sexual abuse cases- the vast majority- never make it to court.

It should be noted that while the rape charges are dropped, Assange is still being investigated for "molestation" (a minor charge which does not refer, in Sweden, to crimes against children, as it does in the US, and which is not punishable by jail time).
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
It should be noted that while the rape charges are dropped, Assange is still being investigated for "molestation" (a minor charge which does not refer, in Sweden, to crimes against children, as it does in the US, and which is not punishable by jail time).
Click to expand...


This is something that keeps getting lost in the discussion. The fact that the rape warrant was withdrawn indicates nothing about the veracity of the claims against him. Two women independently accused him of rape/molestation after they had engaged in consensual sex with him. They gave detailed statements to the prosecutor who decided to issue an arrest warrant for rape and molestation. The second prosecutor chose to withdraw the rape warrant, leaving the molestation warrant active.

Far more plausible than the idea that this was some deep conspiracy that has been thwarted is the likelihood that the second prosecutor didn't believe he could prove a rape charge that arose subsequent to consensual sex (or didn't believe that there could actually be rape subsequent to consensual sex). That's not exactly an exoneration, though I'm sure some will see it as such.
 
RightinNYC said:
The second prosecutor chose to withdraw the rape warrant, leaving the molestation warrant active.
Click to expand...

sorry for being pedantic, but there's no warrant for the molestation, it requires an investigation before it leads to an arrest, so as it stands, he is not a criminal until the investigation is complete, if it turns out to be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom