ssj12 said:
The legal system, and my opinion of the actions of a person are two completely different things. I think they aren't being truthful. That's my opinion. What the legal system states is completely separate from my opinion, but if I look at it from a judicial view I still want all evidence examined and testimony tested. This is like my opinion on Microsoft as its entire company versus their individual OS and console stance and effect on the industry. I hate Microsoft and what they stand for as a company, but I love their OS and console. In ones view that would be contradictory, but in essence there is no reason why I should hate ones products even if I hate ones ethics. (My opinions for Sony and Apple are very similar to that of Microsoft, Reggie is the one thing in Nintendo that annoys me) Assange, if he raped them, is a scumbag. But he is also a good journalist that put the USA and the rest of the world's ethics into light. This is all about prospective. I just see it that the women in this are more looking to break into some grand spotlight or are lying their asses off to deface someone who is exposing the issues of the world's governments. What could be is just a theory of my personal opinion. Maybe straight up calling the women whores was a bit extreme, but my personality is extreme in nature. I really don't care what people think of me or my opinions. I raise my voice, make damn sure I'm heard, make enemies, make allies. This is why I've always been successful as a professional gamer as a clan leader, and why I have made a slight name for myself in my local politics and state representatives. And yes rape is a massive thing to be brought up against you, but that does not mean that other charges like kidnapping can't be brought up against you if you held someone from any length of time against their will. Being charged as a terrorist would probably be a whole lot worse, and probably won't play a roll here, but there is no way to eliminate that it could be argued that he came to that country to cause civil disruptions through lude acts versus mass acts of violent. Also, I will be the first to say, if catch a person in the act of stealing things from you, kill them. Put a bullet in the back of their head. As for rights to lie and fabricate things. Really it is not right, and shouldn't play a role in the legal systems. Someone passing judgment against someone using your individual opinions formed by listening to arguments from your fellow peers as well as the prosecutors and defendants. That is what the US founding fathers wanted, so it is obviously that is at least how things are supposed to be in the legal system. And judges are more at fault for telling juries that they shouldn't pass judgment on how they feel or perceive as the truth and they cannot nullify the judgment. That right there sounds like they are pushing past their legal boundaries and telling jurors what to do. Might as well straight up tell the jury which way to vote if they are told they can't actually use their heads. And true, nullification isn't always a good answer, and there is a time for it as well as a real verdict. But as long a a jury can all say they sat down, discussed what was presented, and came to their verdicts then I can live with an outcome. While some cases should have been examined closer, only acts of violence should be judged. No matter how much I personally hate the Neo-Nazis, KKK, Westboro clowns, etc, they should be free to spread their trashy views as much as they well please as long as they do not commit violent acts. If they do, each person that committed the act of violence should be examined case by case. In the end, Assange can be an example as to how whistle-blowers shouldn't act, so whether he gets put in jail or even executed for something eventually, let it be. There will also be someone that is willing to stand up for whats right in this world, and get enough of these people together they become a force for the corrupt to fear and the just to applaud. |
A) Er, you do know the Jury Nullifcation I'm talking about is when the KKK would hang people, and wouldn't convict right.
B) If you don't agree libel should be part of the justice system... why are you defending Julian Assange? Who very clearly has committed libel in his defense, more then once, and who claims the charges are all one big "jewish conspiracy".
C) So yes. You just want him to be innocent. Your opinion is based on nothing, except the fact that Julian Assange is famous. If your talking about people willing to stand up for what's right in this world....
I sure hope you aren't including yourself in that number, because you are doing the exact opposite. Standing up for what's wrong, and holding an opinion only to protect what someone means to you in your mind. You are standing up for an accused rapist at the expense of treating people who might of been raped like criminals, soley because you want to.
Point to one fact that makes you think this is case is suspisous... anything outside of "Julian Assange famous." You haven't pointed to one single thing that makes you think this way... why can't you admit that you just want him to be innocent, and that's why you think that way? You remind me of the people today who think OJ Simpson was innocent in that, your beliefs aren't based on any rational fact.
You are betraying all of the principles you keep talking about... which makes your grandstanding rather pointless. You are talking about a system in which all men are treated equally, yet supporting a case where one man is put above two women, because you like the guy.
You aren't splitting your opinion. You specifically are letting your love for wikileaks interfere with your judgement on the Assange case.
