What do you think of wikileaks?

[Kasz216]

Kantor said:

Kasz216 said:

Kantor said:

RedInker said:

Assange is a prick and should stop cowering in an embassy and go to Sweden to face trial. Innocent people dont seek asylum in foreign embassies. We dont need this site anyway as all documents will eventually get made public under the freedom of information act. Goverments do need to keep some secrets in the same way business' do.

The hundreds of people who seek asylum in Europe and America from the middle east aren't innocent?

He didn't sexually assault anybody. The crimes with which he is charged are not a part of any sensible definition of sexual assault.

Actually, if you read the actual sweedish police reports they are.

The police reports state that he violently tore her clothes and held her down and penetrated her as she tried to escape and said she didn't want to have sex.

If that isn't a sensible definition of sexual assault i'd like to ask what the fuck is a sensible definition of sexual assault.

The "in sweeden rape isn't really rape" comments were nothing but a blatant sexist propagana smokescreen to blame the victims and get public support on his side because he knew the police records couldn't be released unless leaked.

And then when said police reports WERE leaked and did show that... he threw a fit, cause you know.  He's all about not having transparency when it involves rape I guess.

A few things are important to note here.

A)Firstly, after his first round of questioning, the investigation was stopped, and the chief prosecutor said that there was no reason to suspect him of sexual assault. It was resumed with no apparent trigger a few months later, when he moved to the UK. What caused this?

Secondly, he has yet to be formally charged with any crime. He is wanted for a round of questioning which could easily take place over the phone. So why does Sweden want him so badly?

Thirdly, the British government has gone to great effort to surround the Ecuadorean embassy with police, fill the corridors and at one point threaten to storm the embassy, to arrest a man who has been charged with nothing so that he can be extradited on the evidence of nothing except questionable testimony.

There is SOMETHING going on here, even on the off chance that he is guilty of this sexual assault.

A) They found the second victim and concinved her to talk... and physical evidence came back from lab.

B) In sweeden you can't officially charge him with a crime until the end of an interview.   They want to question him in person, so they can arrest him and charge him with a crime.  They can't do the interview over the phone, because they won't be able to arrest him afterwords and charge him with a crime.

This is done so that the stigma of being charged with a crime only applies after you get out your side of the story to the police, no matter how guilty you might be, like in the case of Julian Assange.  Since they didn't charge him the first time, they have to wait till they interview him again before they can charge him.

C) Because he's a world renown figure trying to use his power to skirt the law... and has made the UK look like a complete ass in doing so.