A) Who cares what I said. It's how I view it till proven wrong. imho, its just women trying to get famous or more famous off all this. Until the justice system states otherwise, I'll keep my opinion. The entire situation seems off.

B) Kidnapping, Held against their will, probably could throw a terrorist charge there too since he isn't of that country's citizen.

C) To stay asleep, or to prevent them from being able to fight back once they wake up.

D) That might be true for these modern days, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and didn't happen numerous times before any type of testing was possible so juries only had someone's argument to go by.

E) I disagree with the term "pollute the jury" as anyone should be able to hold their biases and maintain control of a verdict no matter what. This is why I support the handing out of fliers educating people that they have the right to jury nullification and knowledge that it is OK to vote with their conscience when determining someone's fate as that is what our constitution mandates is completely legal.

A) Er, because your entire arguement was "guilty untill proven innocent and you are in direct hypocricy of that fact?"  In otherwords, your entire arguement is logically incorngruent, full of hypocricy, and in general actually factually wrong due to the logical incongruencies.  You said you thought he was innocent because "in my country people are innocent until proven guilty!" and are accusing other people of being guilty of a crime... without a trial.  This was bascally your entire point.

B) Why would any of those apply to rape?  Accuse a foreigner who raped someone of terrorism... really?  Kidnapping and holding someone against their will?  These aren't crimes rapists are generally charged with unless they you know, kidnap someone or hold them hostage for a long period fo time.  In these cases, after the accused rape, either he left, or in the other case, he stayed in her appartment while she stayed with and slept with a friend because she was too affraid to go back and sleep there.  If the vast majority of rapists don't get those charges, why is it fishy that he didn't... when what he's accused of doesn't fit those crimes.

C)  Again, how would that matter when you've already committed rape.  If I come home, and catch someone robbing my house, and they run outside with just a tv.  They've still stolen from me.  Or if I come home and someone steals my stuff and keeps me in a corner via intimidation.   Still robbery.

D)  Er, again what?  I'm actually pretty sure that hasn't changed, because you know... back in oldren times, people cared LESS about women being raped, and blamed them even MORE FOR being raped and ruining mens proper.  Though even if you were correct on this point... it in no way helps up your arguement.

E) So, you support peoples right to completely lie and fabricate things?  That's a bit different then handing out jurry nullfication fliers.  Also, jury nullification is legal because, there is no way to make it illegal... because courts can't direct verdicts.

Jury Nullification ain't aways a good thing you know?   Non-prosecution of the KKK, non-persecution of rape victims in general hapens a lot, stonings in countries with anti stroing laws, anti-female circumsission laws.... seriously. 

You are in favor of direct libel to alter criminal procedings?  This is really your stance?

F) You.. haven't even really tried to defend your points here.  It's baffling.  I've seen intellectual dishonesty before but this just takes the cake.  You've literally disregarded nearly your entire arguement a post after making it.  How is anyone supposed to take you seriously on this matter?  Lets be honest at this point.... you just what him to be innocent because he's a high profile Libretarian.  None of your arguements have been even remotely logically consistant, and you disregard your entire thesis to support another as soon as it's disproven.  You think the situation is fishy, simply because you want to... the end.

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.

Didn't I just say I really couldn't care less if he gets executed? If he did wrong, he did wrong, let him hang for it. If not, then thats cool.

Let the people that currently run Wikileaks, since its obviously not Assange at all, take over the site and set things right. The rest that left, make things right the way they can with OpenLeaks.

And http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html

Er... your not serious here right?

You do remember where the whole "CIA" thing was written by an anti-semtic holocaust denier who works for Wikileaks right?

There is a reason nobody is treating this story as credible.  It's the same reason nobody believes momar quadafi when he says the revolution is nothing but a few teens hyped up on drugs given to them by foreigners.

It's obviously false.  I mean, they are using discredited information in the very same article.

hmm... normally huffington is reliable on their news.. at least more than Faux or ABC (do they have an anti-network thing like Fox?). Whatever, I really don't follow Assange's exploits or even who really "works" for wikileaks. I just post the least covered cables on my facebook, that's about it. I'll just say let the ball fall where its going to with the court, and let him rot in jail if convicted.

The major thing I follow now a days is what's posted on FTL, The Guardian (UK news as it seems least biased of most news agencies), and I keep up with environmental news as I plan on getting a degree in environmental science with a focus on sustainability so I can hopefully accomplish my goal of making a positive difference in this world before I die. Yes, i am the odd mix of an Libertarian, Environmentalist, and experienced technology guy.

And I wouldn't believe any of those puppet dictators in the middle east past they were used by the USA.

Er... the Huffington post generally considered the Left's version of Fox News.  Them and Daily Kos. (Ironically though the huffington post is in support of Wisconsin democrats, there is apparently a strike at the huffington post because they refuse to give their bloggers collective barganining rights.)

As for the Gurdian.  That's the Newspaper Julian Assange is claiming is trying to frame him due to a "Jewish Conspriacy". by it's writers... who aren't jewish.

As for your opinions on shit.  Those are largely my opinions too... which is the point your missing, and the point to most of the articles I'm posting.

Your accusations against the women are sexist blaming the victim misinformation and in general in the stylings of people like Bill O' Reily, Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore.

Hm? I see, Kasz - I have been and only very lightly researching misandry the concept is being fortunately tracked by scientists around the world. I consider this a wise step as a globalize egalitarian society must see the ramifications of upsetting what may have been very natural.

I'm saying that equal rights for the genders is a fine line unlike equal rights for the so called races of men. The distinction being that their is no physiological difference between men and men or women and women of any man made race but their is an undeniable set of differences between men and women and because of them our fates are very different.

This brings a major challenge for most western societies as how do you take two things that are by default a circle and then square it? This doesn't mean that women should not be treated as human beings but it does mean women should and men as well should be weary of treating each gender equally. This sound's a bit political and I apologize for that. I'll cite some research.

For example in Thailand as well as China over the last 15 years their has been a wider share of feminism put into the mainstream, the male Chinese idols also don't act generally masculine at all, the study if I remember clearly enough showed that the kids that had followed those forms of media or it's inertial influence wore female type clothing and that their average height was lower than the previous generations. (The study is or was still in the works) The result has been a slight increase in the way of Thailand about the transsexual population as well.

The report targets mostly emasculation and lack of sensitivity about the caricatures of men. Mostly that men go out and work while women generally and television generally raise the kids.

My point is without getting too into VAWA act and other laws for womens rights pushed by the femanist lobby which give women rights at the cost of rights to males in the US (Thankfully curbed by many state legislatures) is a balancing act.