Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraws asylum.

[Darth Yan]

Dude he answered that half a dozen posts ago.

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

Apparently you don't think there's any need for a trial, since you've already convicted him when he hasn't even been charged with rape.

Great leap in logic from both of you fucktards.

Were our conclusions unfair? Then answer the fucking question: Do you support Assange's extradition to Sweden to stand trial for rape, yes or no. If no, then it is fair to say that you believe he should not face trial for rape.

You are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears with enough force to break the sound barrier. I explained my reason for opposing Assange's extradition to Sweden and it has nothing to do with the crime he's accused of committing. I'm just as opposed to extradition for more serious crimes for the same reason: extradition to a country that either practices torture or hands suspects over to one is immoral and according to international law, illegal.

Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado.

Nice Whataboutism. Now let's take it apart.

Use of the term "whataboutism" is the battle cry of the lying, dimwitted hypocrite. No wonder you're so fond of it.

The problem with your little analogy is that two things aren't remotely comparable. If you don't support extraditing Snowden to stand trial for rape, you don't support extraditing him to stand trial for rape. Therefore, you believe that he should walk on the rape accusations. Whatever your reasons are, you believe it is justified to let a possible rapist go free without further investigation or trial. That is not a leap- its your stated position.

You are such a lying little fuckhead, aren't you? Here's your post, asshole:

Elfdart still won't answer whether he believes that Assange should be extradited to Sweden for a rape investigation.

Guess he doesn't want to admit that he thinks men should get a pass on rape charges if they're "anti-establishment" enough.

Now that's a flat-out fucking lie. His political views have nothing to do with it, any more than the politics of the two Egyptians the Swedish government handed over to the US to be tortured have anything to do with my position. Both you and that other shitstain leaped from "opposes extradition" to this:

Huh, guess I missed that.

Guess I don't have to feel bad about calling him a rape apologist, either.

Get that folks? In the tiny mind of TRR, if you oppose extradition for a suspect because there's good reason to believe they'll be mistreated, then you support whatever crimes they're accused of. So anyone who opposed the rendition of those two Egyptians must be a jihadist.

By the way, SNOWDEN hasn't been accused of rape. But since you think it's OK to accuse pretty much anyone and everyone who isn't a fluffer for the Clinton campaign of being a Russian agent, a rapist or rape apologist, it's obvious that your Freudian Slip is showing.

Whereas it is absolutely a leap (and a damned libelous one) to say that because we support his extradition and trial on rape charges, we also support his rendition and torture, because his rendition and torture are not (contrary to what his apologists claim) necessary or inevitable results of him being extradited and tried for rape. You have tried to conflate "He should be extradited and tried for rape" with "he should be extradited and tortured/disappeared as part of a US plot to destroy freedom of the press", and then ignore factual reasons for his arrest so that you can pretend that anyone who supports his arrest is supporting The Evil US Conspiracy. That is a preposterous straw man.

At this point, your lies are almost pathological. I wrote that if I applied the standard you and that other fuckwit used (opposing extradition = support for crime), then it could just as easily be argued that if you want him extradited to Sweden, then you must want him renditioned to US custody for torture. Here's the text:

Using your standard, I could argue that the reason you want Assange extradited to Sweden is BECAUSE they have a track record of enabling the torture or foreign nationals and you just have a hard-on for waterboarding and strappado.

Guess you don't want to admit that you think torture and other brutal treatment are swell as long as the target is someone you've convinced yourself was responsible for Hillary losing an election to a racist game show host. You two dickheads can take your poorly crafted strawmen, light them on fire, and stick them right up your asses.

Notice the word "could"?

So in a perverse way you're right, the two aren't comparable. I didn't actually say you support rendition and torture; I merely pointed out that by the fucktarded logic you use, a person willing to stoop to your level COULD make the same charge against you. But you DID in fact call me a "rape apologist" without a single quote to back up your claim.

I have never supported Assange's rendition or torture. To my knowledge, neither has Ralin. I have even, in fact, repeatedly and explicitly stated that I do not support his extradition to the US. In short, you are lying, and you will retract and apologize for the lie now,

While the use of the term "whataboutism" is a sure giveaway that the user is a dishonest, two-faced prick who is losing an argument, it isn't the only one -not by a country mile. The REAL giveaway that a dishonest, two-faced prick is losing is when he starts throwing around legal terms or making threats.

By the way, in cases of libel, the truth is an absolute defense. In other words, if the shoe fits, wear it. Since I haven't lied about you at all (Why would I? The truth causes you much more grief than any lie concocted by the human mind.), using the word libel makes you come across like a blubbering vagina.

or I will have no choice but to report you for dishonesty and libel.

Are you going to put me on Double-Secret Probation too, Dean Wormer?

Also, given the closeness of the race, he is very likely partly responsible for Trump's election. Which I'm sure is justified too, because its "anti-establishment". But while that is certainly a reason for me to hold him in personal contempt, and want to see him face justice, it really has no bearing on whether the rape investigation is a valid reason for his arrest.

Has it occurred to you that if a lolbertarian hiding in an embassy can cost a candidate an election, then maybe that candidate sucked so hard they were going to choke and lose in humiliating fashion anyway? And that 30 months of crazed conspiracy theories about Russia, Assange, Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon and "Bernie Bros" are wasted on such a shit politician in the first place?

It takes a Grade A lying shitstain to turn "opposes handing suspect over to police state torture regime" into "supports whatever crime the suspect is accused of". You're every bit as much of a lowlife as the morons who claimed that anyone who opposed "rendition" and torture of suspected terrorists was somehow "pro-terrorist".

Again, my question would be: how has the composition of the Swedish government, its policies and laws, changed since the rendition case you cited? I know people like you believe that all Western nations are an unchanging monolith of evil that should be collectively judged for every misdeed in their entire history, but these things matter.

In other words: if you are going to claim that Sweden is a "police state torture regime"... back it the fuck up.

I was referring to the US as the torture regime out to get Assange. They're the ones who have an extradition request, moron.

You will also quote where I supported Assange's rendition or torture, or you will retract and apologize for that claim, or I will report you for libel and dishonest debating.

Or are you saying that the US is a police state torture regime, and that I therefore support those things? If that is the case, then I will reiterate: I DO NOT SUPPORT ASSANGE'S EXTRADITION TO THE US. I have said this often enough in this thread that you cannot claim ignorance. When you claim that I support Assange's rendition and torture, YOU ARE LYING.

Cut the bullshit already. Sweden's record of giving people up to torturers isn't a relic from the distant past.

Now go play in traffic, you fucking imbecile.

Honest question to any mods watching this: is telling someone to commit suicide against board rules? Because it is against Canadian law:

Counselling or aiding suicide
241. Every one who
(a) counsels a person to [die by] suicide, or
(b) aids or abets a person to [die by] suicide,
whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Drama queen much?

Elfdart......the problem is that Assange may well BE guilty of rape. The only reason the investigation was closed was because he hid in the embassy and so they had to cancel. The only way to settle that matter is if he goes on trial, and that can only happen if he goes to sweeden. Considering that he won't do that willingly the only way for a trial to be held is if he's dragged there. Sweden May well NOT allow his extradition to the US; just because they did it with those two egyptians doesn't mean they'll do it for Assange.

In any case, you may not mean to be doing so but you are giving the impression that because Assange may be extradited to the US he shouldn't have to face the music for the rape charges. If Assange is guilty should he be punished, and should steps be taken to allow people to learn the truth?

[Coop D'etat]

Even if Assange is extradition to the US, concerns a person suspected of terrorism will be subjected to torture in Egypt are a fair bit different than concerns that someone held by the District.Court of Eastern Virginia would be subjected to torture. So the argument is something of a red herring.

[Elfdart]

What the fuck does Snowden have to do with any of this? I didn't mention Snowden. I'm not talking about Snowden. Snowden is not the topic of this thread. Do you think that if you just throw in some vague babble about Snowden, everyone will think "TRR wants the US to torture Snowden too, even though he hasn't been accused of rape!!' The sad thing is, probably half the people on this board would buy that.

Bitch, stop lying.

YOU brought up Snowden earlier in this thread, you lying little cunt:

The problem with your little analogy is that two things aren't remotely comparable. If you don't support extraditing Snowden to stand trial for rape, you don't support extraditing him to stand trial for rape. Therefore, you believe that he should walk on the rape accusations. Whatever your reasons are, you believe it is justified to let a possible rapist go free without further investigation or trial. That is not a leap- its your stated position.

You needn't worry about whether "half the people on this board would buy that" because very few on this board are stupid enough to take anything you write seriously, with or without a truckload of salt. Some of the more sadistic posters no doubt get a chuckle watching you flail about but remember: they're laughing at you, not with you.

Are you going to put me on Double-Secret Probation too, Dean Wormer?

No. But I am going to report you for libel, dishonest debating, ad hominem, poisoning the well, blatant misogyny, and counselling suicide in violation of Canadian law (given this board is, you know, run out of Canada).

You left out three counts of aggravated witchcraft.

And here is my position on Elfdart: He is a lying, trolling coward who believes that Assange should get a pass on rape allegations because of a nebulous fear of US persecution if Assange is extradited, evades the question of whether he believes Assange's accusers are telling the truth, routinely uses misogynist insults and ad hominems, condemns the United States for its human rights abuses while hypocritically supporting the narrative of Trump and Barr on collusion (a man who's career practically embodies "corrupt US establishment with no respect for human rights or international law"), repeatedly tries to shift the debate to attacks on my character or "you just hate Assange because EVIL HILLARY", and committed an indictable offense under Canadian law by telling me and Ralin to commit suicide.

Translation:

"Elfie just dunked on me again!"

[Elfdart]

TRR, If the things Vympel and Elfdart are saying bother you so much, instead of meeting like with like and creating another thread worthy of the HoS just call for a mod ruling like you've been told to do. The same goes for calling anything negative about your character as a poster libel and the 'go play in traffic' comment if you actually think you have a case go ahead and file charges if not take things for the meaningless board culture insults they are and grow a thicker skin.

As for your calling Vymple and Elfdart rape apologists in order to do that you'd need to ask them one simple question. If there was a zero percent risk of extradition would you support Assange being extradited to stand trial for sexual assault and/or rape charges? Then you need to ask what percentage chance there is that Sweden both hands him over to the US, possible against his terms of extradition, and then that the US, once in possession of Assange uses extra-legal means to make his life a living hell?

So, Vympel and Elfdart what are your answers to those two questions? TRR what is your answer to the second question what do you rate the odds at?

As Jennifer Robinson, Assange's lawyer pointed out, they were willing to cooperate as long as Sweden promised not to hand him over to the US. Sweden emphatically said no, and given the barbarous treatment Bradley Manning got for his part in the leaks, he would have been insane to agree to leave sanctuary.

[Elfdart]

Elfdart......the problem is that Assange may well BE guilty of rape. The only reason the investigation was closed was because he hid in the embassy and so they had to cancel. The only way to settle that matter is if he goes on trial, and that can only happen if he goes to sweeden. Considering that he won't do that willingly the only way for a trial to be held is if he's dragged there. Sweden May well NOT allow his extradition to the US; just because they did it with those two egyptians doesn't mean they'll do it for Assange.

In any case, you may not mean to be doing so but you are giving the impression that because Assange may be extradited to the US he shouldn't have to face the music for the rape charges. If Assange is guilty should he be punished, and should steps be taken to allow people to learn the truth?

Of course he might be guilty. Just like any one of the people raped, tortured or killed in Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or the various black sites might very well have been "terrorists".

There's a reason civilized countries who hold the rule of law in high regard do NOT extradite suspects to countries that practice torture. Many won't extradite to countries with the death penalty either. No one in their right mind would send a suspect to a torture or death penalty state on the grounds that well, they might not torture or kill this guy in particular.

I will answer what I think, just because I can. It's the answer I gave years ago when Assange sought refuge.

Assange should face trial should Sweden decide to proceed. However he should only face Swedish courts, not be extradited to the US. All Sweden has to do is guarantee that he will not be extradited for political charges to the US. If even the PRC can guarantee they won't execute those extradited, even though capital punishment is legal there, surely a Western democracy should be able to guarantee they won't extradite to a country which practices torture, in accordance with Sweden's own laws against torture.

Sweden has insisted that they won't give any such assurances, so it's kinda obvious they intend to hand him over should they gain custody.

Also calling Elfdart a rape apologist when he has argued for the extradition of convicted rapist like Roman Polanski despite European objection, to be frankly a smear.

You're not fooling anyone. You wrote that because you are in league with Putin, Assange and Viggo Mortensen.

[Ralin]

As Jennifer Robinson, Assange's lawyer pointed out, they were willing to cooperate as long as Sweden promised not to hand him over to the US. Sweden emphatically said no,

And rightly so. Setting a precedent that accused rapists can dictate the terms of whether they will or will not stand trial for their crimes would be horrible.

and given the barbarous treatment Bradley Manning got for his part in the leaks, he would have been insane to agree to leave sanctuary.

I don’t know of any Bradley Manning. Do you mean Chelsea Manning? Because you really shouldn’t misgender transgender people or use defunct names for them.

Sweden has insisted that they won't give any such assurances, so it's kinda obvious they intend to hand him over should they gain custody.

Rapists don’t get to demand concessions on potential future charges for standing trial in the first place.

Also

Do you agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden once the prosecutors there get their act together? Yes or no.

No. Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the US to be tortured at black sites or by client states. That's the reason Assange sought sanctuary in the first place.

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

CONTEXT ELFDART IS AWARE OF BUT IGNORING:
Assange’s known rapes were committed in Sweden. Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed requires him to be in Sweden because that’s where the Swedish government holds trials. Getting Assange to Sweden requires him to be extradited to Sweden (or for him to go there of his own free will for some reason, I guess). Elfdart has stated he does not agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden.

Where’s the lie, Elfdart? Yes or no, do you believe Assange should be tried for the rapes he has committed (in Sweden)? If yes then do you agreed that Assange must be extradited to Sweden to be tried for the rapes he has committed (in Sweden)?

Answer the question, you mosquito-dicked coward.

[The Romulan Republic]

Reg: Snowden. I am well-aware that Snowden has not been charged with rape, of course. If I said Snowden instead of Assange at some point (I honestly don't recall), it was an obvious error, not intended. Its called a typo, they happen. Elfdart's trying to inflate this into some deliberate lie on my part, or proof that I label anyone I disagree with a rapist, is simply more of his campaign of systematic lying, defamation, harassment, vendetta, and ad hominem, because he is a cowardly piece of shit who would rather debate my character and reputation than my arguments.

His calling me a "cunt" is another example of his routine use of misogynist language, fittingly for a rape apologist.

[Elfdart]

As Jennifer Robinson, Assange's lawyer pointed out, they were willing to cooperate as long as Sweden promised not to hand him over to the US. Sweden emphatically said no,

And rightly so. Setting a precedent that accused rapists can dictate the terms of whether they will or will not stand trial for their crimes would be horrible.

How is Assange's case different from other cases of alleged rape? Oh that's right -in other cases, the suspect isn't being sought for extradition by a country that runs an international abduction and torture program and one that treated his source of information in such a brutal manner.

and given the barbarous treatment Bradley Manning got for his part in the leaks, he would have been insane to agree to leave sanctuary.

I don’t know of any Bradley Manning.

Then you have no business commenting in this thread, you lying asshole.

Do you mean Chelsea Manning? Because you really shouldn’t misgender transgender people or use defunct names for them.

You're really clutching at straws now, aren't you? When the information was leaked, the person doing the leaking went by the identity of Bradley Manning, as he did when he was tried and locked up. It was only after Manning was sentenced in 2013 that the private asked to be referred to as Chelsea Manning. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Manning. Otherwise, fuck off already.

Reg: Snowden. I am well-aware that Snowden has not been charged with rape, of course. If I said Snowden instead of Assange at some point (I honestly don't recall),

You "honestly don't recall" AFTER I quoted YOUR post and linked to it? You still "don't recall"? Do you or do you not write your own fucking posts?

it was an obvious error, not intended. Its called a typo, they happen. Elfdart's trying to inflate this into some deliberate lie on my part, or proof that I label anyone I disagree with a rapist, is simply more of his campaign of systematic lying, defamation, harassment, vendetta, and ad hominem, because he is a cowardly piece of shit who would rather debate my character and reputation than my arguments.

You have no character and you have no arguments. No doubt by pointing this out, I'm violating one Canadian law or another whereby mocking stupidity is illegal.

His calling me a "cunt" is another example of his routine use of misogynist language, fittingly for a rape apologist.

Along with his earlier Freudian Slip, this nugget of imbecility shows that TRR simply can't hold his own in any discussion of current events.

[The Romulan Republic]

Elfdart continues to rely entirely on abusing and defaming me rather than making substantive arguments. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll get away with it, because I am considered fair game for libel and harasment on this board, and this board doesn't actually care about honest debate.

Also: stop whining about a "Freudian slip". Accidentally saying "Snowden" instead of Assange does not prove that I secretly think everyone who disagrees with me is a rapist or whatever excrement is vomiting out of your keyboard this post. Its called "a mistake". Everyone makes them. Also, Freud was a discredited hack.

[Ralin]

How is Assange's case different from other cases of alleged rape? Oh that's right -in other cases, the suspect isn't being sought for extradition by a country that runs an international abduction and torture program and one that treated his source of information in such a brutal manner. The rapist fled the country

Rapists don’t get to set terms for whether or not they will stand trial.

Then you have no business commenting in this thread, you lying asshole.

Stop calling me a liar. Liar.

You're really clutching at straws now, aren't you? When the information was leaked, the person doing the leaking went by the identity of Bradley Manning, as he did when he was tried and locked up. It was only after Manning was sentenced in 2013 that the private asked to be referred to as Chelsea Manning. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Manning. Otherwise, fuck off already.

The ‘person in question’ is named Chelsea Manning and has always been a woman. She has said so repeatedly and through her representatives. Do you deny that?

Also

Do you agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden once the prosecutors there get their act together? Yes or no.

No. Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the US to be tortured at black sites or by client states. That's the reason Assange sought sanctuary in the first place.

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

CONTEXT ELFDART IS AWARE OF BUT IGNORING:
Assange’s known rapes were committed in Sweden. Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed requires him to be in Sweden because that’s where the Swedish government holds trials. Getting Assange to Sweden requires him to be extradited to Sweden (or for him to go there of his own free will for some reason, I guess). Elfdart has stated he does not agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden.

^Answer the question, Elfdart. Where's the lie?

[Darth Yan]

Ralin’s right. He only fled Sweden to duck rape charges; if Sweden lets him dictate terms it sets a bad precedent. In any case Elfdart refusing to address Manning by her preferred gender does seem rather bigoted and he does have a bit of a history of making sexist comments

[Ralin]

Do you agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden once the prosecutors there get their act together? Yes or no.

No. Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the US to be tortured at black sites or by client states. That's the reason Assange sought sanctuary in the first place.

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

CONTEXT ELFDART IS AWARE OF BUT IGNORING:
Assange’s known rapes were committed in Sweden. Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed requires him to be in Sweden because that’s where the Swedish government holds trials. Getting Assange to Sweden requires him to be extradited to Sweden (or for him to go there of his own free will for some reason, I guess). Elfdart has stated he does not agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden.

Answer the question you fucking coward. Where’s the lie?

[Elfdart]

Ralin’s right. He only fled Sweden to duck rape charges; if Sweden lets him dictate terms it sets a bad precedent.

Bullshit. There are no "rape charges". The only crimes Assange is currently charged with are bail-jumping and conspiracy. The Swedes have stated they're looking into re-opening the investigation. I realize that Ralin is a delusional fuckwit, as well as a liar, but he refers to "known rapes" and "rapes he has committed" as though these were proven facts or even formal indictments when they're only allegations at this point. As Assange and his attorney have stated, they would have cooperated with the Swedish authorities in Sweden or in the UK, provided he wasn't handed over to the US government. As for ducking rape charges, as Amanda Marcotte pointed out, if he had already been tried and convicted under Swedish law, odds are he would have already been released from jail by now.

In any case Elfdart refusing to address Manning by her preferred gender does seem rather bigoted and he does have a bit of a history of making sexist comments

When a certain boxer beat Sonny Liston, he went by the name of Cassius Clay. This fact is not retroactively changed just because that boxer became a Muslim and changed his name to Muhammad Ali. It's not racist or anti-Muslim to refer to him by his old name when discussing the early part of his career. If this is the best that you, TRR and that lying little sack of shit can come up with, you suck at ad hominem and should try another tack, since this one is getting you nowhere.

[Ralin]

There are no "rape charges".

The only crimes Assange is currently charged with are bail-jumping and conspiracy.

He only fled Sweden to duck rape charges;

Everyone, see what Elfdart did there? Darth Yan was talking about how Assange fled Sweden while he was being investigated for rape. This has been mentioned more than once in this thread, along with the fact that under Swedish law they had to suspend the investigation on the grounds that he couldn’t be arrested on the grounds that he fled the country and was hiding in another country’s embassy. Then Elfdart turned around and stated that Assange isn’t currently being charged with rape, pretending that Darth Yan wasn’t talking about the rape charges Assange fled Sweden to avoid in the first place.

What a dishonest little fuck.

but he refers to "known rapes" and "rapes he has committed" as though these were proven facts or even formal indictments when they're only allegations at this point

Assange is a rapist. We know he’s a rapist because people he raped came forward and said so. Whether he’s been convicted or not doesn’t make him any less of a known rapist, same as our most recent Supreme Court Justice.

As Assange and his attorney have stated, they would have cooperated with the Swedish authorities in Sweden or in the UK, provided he wasn't handed over to the US government.

Rapists don’t get to set terms for whether or not they will stand trial.

He only fled Sweden to duck rape charges; if Sweden lets him dictate terms it sets a bad precedent.

…

As for ducking rape charges, as Amanda Marcotte pointed out, if he had already been tried and convicted under Swedish law, odds are he would have already been released from jail by now.

But Rapey McRapeface hasn’t been tried and convicted and as such hasn’t even started serving his sentence.

When a certain boxer beat Sonny Liston, he went by the name of Cassius Clay. This fact is not retroactively changed just because that boxer became a Muslim and changed his name to Muhammad Ali. It's not racist or anti-Muslim to refer to him by his old name when discussing the early part of his career. If this is the best that you, TRR and that lying little sack of shit can come up with, you suck at ad hominem and should try another tack, since this one is getting you nowhere.

So, once could have just been a misunderstanding, but Elfdart has doubled and tripled down on this. Is misgendering and dead-naming transgender people against the board rules or are we still operating at the ‘Shep can publicly call a transgender member it and stay a mod for literally years afterward’ level of wokeness?

Oh, and least we forget:

Do you agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden once the prosecutors there get their act together? Yes or no.

No. Sweden has a proven track record of handing people over to the US to be tortured at black sites or by client states. That's the reason Assange sought sanctuary in the first place.

Elfdart opposes Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed.

CONTEXT ELFDART IS AWARE OF BUT IGNORING:
Assange’s known rapes were committed in Sweden. Assange facing trial for the rapes he has committed requires him to be in Sweden because that’s where the Swedish government holds trials. Getting Assange to Sweden requires him to be extradited to Sweden (or for him to go there of his own free will for some reason, I guess). Elfdart has stated he does not agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden.

Answer the question, Elfdart. Where’s the lie?

[Jub]

Assange is a rapist. We know he’s a rapist because people he raped came forward and said so. Whether he’s been convicted or not doesn’t make him any less of a known rapist, same as our most recent Supreme Court Justice.

That's not how that works and both Assange and Kavanaugh are innocent until proven guilty. I think they both engaged in skeevy behavior at best and rape at worst but we can't simply call every person accused of a crime a criminal without starting a slide down a very slippery slope.

Rapists don’t get to set terms for whether or not they will stand trial.

Nations should send people to Egypt to face torture either. If Sweden hadn't done that in cooperation with the US Assange would have been tried by now.

But Rapey McRapeface hasn’t been tried and convicted and as such hasn’t even started serving his sentence.

Make the case that he'll even be convicted. I want your evidence and when giving you evidence remember that an accuser alone isn't good enough for most courts of law. This is coming from somebody who thinks Assange is at best a creepy fucker who's worn on the last nerve of everybody he's come into contact with.

So, once could have just been a misunderstanding, but Elfdart has doubled and tripled down on this. Is misgendering and dead-naming transgender people against the board rules or are we still operating at the ‘Shep can publicly call a transgender member it and stay a mod for literally years afterward’ level of wokeness?

I fully agree with this point. Deadnaming a trans person without very good reason is unacceptable but I think it stops short of actually violating the board's no slurs rule. It's rude and disgusting but I think many people still see it as less disgusting than something like the n-slur or the f-slur.

[Ralin]

That's not how that works and both Assange and Kavanaugh are innocent until proven guilty. I think they both engaged in skeevy behavior at best and rape at worst but we can't simply call every person accused of a crime a criminal without starting a slide down a very slippery slope.

The hell it isn’t. The courts can’t treat them as guilty until they’re convicted. The rest of us can and should, and I intend to.

Nations should send people to Egypt to face torture either. If Sweden hadn't done that in cooperation with the US Assange would have been tried by now.

Now that’s a pretty big claim. What makes you think that Ecuador wouldn’t have given him sanctuary otherwise? No one even had proof the US was trying to extradite him from the UK until now, much less Sweden. Nor does it make much sense for him to flee there in the first place (the UK was/is a much closer ally than Sweden and directly involved with fighting the ‘War on Terror’ in the boots on the ground sense) if he was really just concerned about retaliation from the US instead of, you know. Evading rape charges.

Make the case that he'll even be convicted. I want your evidence and when giving you evidence remember that an accuser alone isn't good enough for most courts of law. This is coming from somebody who thinks Assange is at best a creepy fucker who's worn on the last nerve of everybody he's come into contact with.

Actually yeah, the fact that two of his victims came forward and gave details is pretty good proof. As for evidence beyond that, clearly the prosecution has found enough that they were willing to go to the trouble of trying to extradite him so I can only trust in their competence. The specifics I don't know. But there’s only one way we’re going to find out.

[Jub]

The hell it isn’t. The courts can’t treat them as guilty until they’re convicted. The rest of us can and should, and I intend to.

Doesn't that place a very low burden of proof on the accuser and a near impossible burden on the accused? Imagine if you had such an accusation leveled at you and people took the same stance you yourself are taking.

Now that’s a pretty big claim. What makes you think that Ecuador wouldn’t have given him sanctuary otherwise? No one even had proof the US was trying to extradite him from the UK until now, much less Sweden. Nor does it make much sense for him to flee there in the first place (the UK was/is a much closer ally than Sweden and directly involved with fighting the ‘War on Terror’ in the boots on the ground sense) if he was really just concerned about retaliation from the US instead of, you know. Evading rape charges.

In Assange's case, it pays to be paranoid and to assume that the US will do everything in their considerable power to get their hands on you. Thus it makes sense to act as he did even without confirmation that the US was looking to extradite him. This is fairly simple logically reasoning.

Actually yeah, the fact that two of his victims came forward and gave details is pretty good proof. As for evidence beyond that, clearly the prosecution has found enough that they were willing to go to the trouble of trying to extradite him so I can only trust in their competence. The specifics I don't know. But there’s only one way we’re going to find out.

Cases that fail to get convictions are prosecuted all the time the fact that the prosecution was willing to proceed with the case doesn't make Assange guilty of anything. Less commonly, but still within the realm of possibility, witnesses and accusers misrepresent reality. Note that I never said anybody lied, you can misremember or place an overly large emphasis on an event that doesn't match what a neutral observer would have said about the same event. This is why we have trials and cross-examinations and why physical evidence is preferable when trying to convict somebody of a crime as serious as rape.

Yet apparently in Ralin land as long as more than one accuser can provide details about an event that event definitely happened exactly as they've described it...

[Ralin]

Doesn't that place a very low burden of proof on the accuser and a near impossible burden on the accused? Imagine if you had such an accusation leveled at you and people took the same stance you yourself are taking.

Yeah, but the alternative is deciding that most rape victims matter less than the rights of their rapists. Someone’s going to be treated unfairly regardless and we should favor the victims over the falsely accused because the former is really common and the latter is…not.

In Assange's case, it pays to be paranoid and to assume that the US will do everything in their considerable power to get their hands on you. Thus it makes sense to act as he did even without confirmation that the US was looking to extradite him. This is fairly simple logically reasoning.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. He fled from one US ally to a much closer US ally.

Hell, even now do you think Sweden is more likely to extradite him to the US than the UK is? What else should they do with him, let him wander off once he’s done time for jumping bail?

Cases that fail to get convictions are prosecuted all the time the fact that the prosecution was willing to proceed with the case doesn't make Assange guilty of anything. Less commonly, but still within the realm of possibility, witnesses and accusers misrepresent reality. Note that I never said anybody lied, you can misremember or place an overly large emphasis on an event that doesn't match what a neutral observer would have said about the same event. This is why we have trials and cross-examinations and why physical evidence is preferable when trying to convict somebody of a crime as serious as rape.

Yet apparently in Ralin land as long as more than one accuser can provide details about an event that event definitely happened exactly as they've described it...

Rape McRapeface should totally get a fair trial for his crimes. That said, when people say they’ve been raped by someone I will take them at their word and act accordingly unless I have a specific reason to doubt them. It’s not perfect, but until we have legal systems that consistently catch and punish these crimes it’s the best that can be done.

[Jub]

Yeah, but the alternative is deciding that most rape victims matter less than the rights of their rapists. Someone’s going to be treated unfairly regardless and we should favor the victims over the falsely accused because the former is really common and the latter is…not.

I think we should give more equal footing to both parties to prevent accusations of sexual misconduct being used as a weapon against people the accusers dislike. While there is always a victim in cases where such misconduct did actually happen a false accusation creates a new victim who's life can be just as ruined as that of a victim of sexual assault.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. He fled from one US ally to a much closer US ally.

Hell, even now do you think Sweden is more likely to extradite him to the US than the UK is? What else should they do with him, let him wander off once he’s done time for jumping bail?

He left a nation actively trying to arrest him for one where he could more easily avoid that fate and find asylum. That the nation he ended up in is a close US ally is probably more down to circumstance and the density of embassies in London than any other factor.

As for his extradition, we can't know that Sweden wouldn't extradite him to the US but we know that the UK won't. In this case, a deal could be cut, Sweden tries him via teleconference while he physically remains and, if convicted, serves his time in the UK. Justice is served and his fears are taken care of.

Rape McRapeface should totally get a fair trial for his crimes. That said, when people say they’ve been raped by someone I will take them at their word and act accordingly unless I have a specific reason to doubt them. It’s not perfect, but until we have legal systems that consistently catch and punish these crimes it’s the best that can be done.

The best that can be done is to petition for an overhaul of our legal system, not to un-people the accused based off of quotes in the press. Discrimination based on accusations should be banned by law as are other forms of discrimination.

[Ralin]

I think we should give more equal footing to both parties to prevent accusations of sexual misconduct being used as a weapon against people the accusers dislike. While there is always a victim in cases where such misconduct did actually happen a false accusation creates a new victim who's life can be just as ruined as that of a victim of sexual assault.

Sweden has a court system. As far as I know it works better than America’s.

He left a nation actively trying to arrest him

For rape.

So you do realize that if we go down this route anyone who commits rape in freedom can count on getting away with it so long as they make it outside the country and do something to piss the US government off, right?

The best that can be done is to petition for an overhaul of our legal system, not to un-people the accused based off of quotes in the press.

And until that happens the best we can do is take rape victims at their word and act accordingly.

Simple question Jub, what should be a priority: justice for rape victims or justice for people falsely accused of rape? Do you deny one of these two groups will be shafted until this ‘overhaul of our legal system’ (you were just emphasizing in another thread that you aren’t a citizen of any of the countries involved here) is done?

Discrimination based on accusations should be banned by law as are other forms of discrimination.

Like hell they should. I will not pretend that a known rapist is anything else just because no one has managed to convict them for it and you’re goddamn right I will discriminate against them in any way that I can.

[Jub]

Sweden has a court system. As far as I know it works better than America’s.

That depends on your definition of working. Rapes have a 3% steady 3% conviction rate with 179 convictions on 5,918 cases in 2015. Assange could hardly ask for better rates of conviction if he were to hand pick the nation trying him, but that isn't the issue at hand here.

Sweden has committed a crime equal heinous in sending send to a torture site, a crime for which they will never stand trial. As such it's difficult to argue that they meet their own standards of lawful conduct.

For rape.

So you do realize that if we go down this route anyone who commits rape in freedom can count on getting away with it so long as they make it outside the country and do something to piss the US government off, right?

If the host nation has shown a willingness to violate international law and send people to be tortured or worse I'd say those fleeing have a may have a valid reason for doing so. If nations wish to avoid such complications they should consider not violating international conventions in the name of scoring cheap political points.

And until that happens the best we can do is take rape victims at their word and act accordingly.

No, that's an over simplistic reaction to an area we've been historically poor at addressing. The correct response would be to give both parties the same level of consideration as to their truthfulness and to get them both legal and, if required, mental health support in what will surely be a trying time for both parties. If the accused works in a sensitive position their employer should be allowed to suspend them with pay or move them to another less sensitive position until the case can be properly resolved.

Simple question Jub, what should be a priority: justice for rape victims or justice for people falsely accused of rape? Do you deny one of these two groups will be shafted until this ‘overhaul of our legal system’ (you were just emphasizing in another thread that you aren’t a citizen of any of the countries involved here) is done?

It's a false dichotomy. As outlined above both sides can be respected equally by very simple means which any first world nation is able to provide. It would take minimal changes to make my suggestion a reality and my system is better than what we used to do and what we're currently doing.

As for Canada's involvement, there are going to be extradition requests between our nations for crimes such as rape in the future. While Canada isn't innocent in doing shady shit in the war on terror I'd be wary of handing over somebody with Assange's history to them or a nation that would agree to extradite them to the US.

Like hell they should. I will not pretend that a known rapist is anything else just because no one has managed to convict them for it and you’re goddamn right I will discriminate against them in any way that I can.

If you faced such accusations, even if they were later disproven, how would you feel about people doing to you what you are doing to them? If you lost your career and were blacklisted from future employment in your field or if you lost your loved ones due to their belief in your guilt or due to the stress of your conviction?

Would you condemn an innocent person to that out of some twisted sense of justice?

[Elfdart]

So, once could have just been a misunderstanding, but Elfdart has doubled and tripled down on this. Is misgendering and dead-naming transgender people against the board rules or are we still operating at the ‘Shep can publicly call a transgender member it and stay a mod for literally years afterward’ level of wokeness?

I fully agree with this point. Deadnaming a trans person without very good reason is unacceptable but I think it stops short of actually violating the board's no slurs rule. It's rude and disgusting but I think many people still see it as less disgusting than something like the n-slur or the f-slur.

I didn't write what you quote me as writing.

Elfdart continues to rely entirely on abusing and defaming me rather than making substantive arguments. Don't worry, I'm sure he'll get away with it, because I am considered fair game for libel and harasment on this board, and this board doesn't actually care about honest debate.

If this board and its moderators are so awful in your opinion, why do you still post here so much?

Also: stop whining about a "Freudian slip". Accidentally saying "Snowden" instead of Assange does not prove that I secretly think everyone who disagrees with me is a rapist or whatever excrement is vomiting out of your keyboard this post. Its called "a mistake". Everyone makes them. Also, Freud was a discredited hack.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why do I post here? Because there's occassionally good content, and because I'll be damned if I'll let myself be bullied off the board by a misogynist troll with his head up Putin's asshole.

(Reg. misogyny, I just love how you evidently think that calling me "lady" is an insult. But I guess you would, rape apologist.)

[TimothyC]

(Reg. misogyny, I just love how you evidently think that calling me "lady" is an insult. But I guess you would, rape apologist.)

It's a line from Hamlet (Act III Scene II) you cad.

[Jub]

I didn't write what you quote me as writing.

Whoops. That'll teach me to check my quote tags more carefully in the future.