The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Assange: what it means to be a suspect > Comments

Assange: what it means to be a suspect : Comments

By Max Atkinson, published 30/12/2010

Since 9/11 for the media the line between 'suspected' and 'convicted' has become indistinct.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
An excellent article, Max.

As you say in paragraph one, there is no evidence to support his (Assange’s) further claim that the US has pressured Sweden authorities to revive a case they had previously dismissed.

However, it is highly likely that the US is behind this as they have an organization specially funded to do their bidding on all covert matters, the CIA, who have been doing such things and much worse forever. That is what they do. It is even seen as respectable, an arm of the US government. Should one chronicle the activities in Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, most of Latin America, Iran (on-going and driven by Israel and a weak and submissive Congress) and every country on the globe including Australia, circa 1973. Then you mention Pallin, Gingrich, McConnell and I add Huckabee, putting the Christian viewpoint as to the preferred fate of Assange which is to “disappear” him. Whatever that quaint term means, it doesn’t sound friendly. Then there is the ‘empty suit’, VP Biden, cheerleader for the despised AIPAC. All their vested reasons though are somewhat different to the CIA, but equally evil and corrupt.

So whatever one considers are the motivations for US anger, a need to ‘disappear’ Assange, it is really the fact that he and his partners in ‘crime’ if that is what it is, those media organizations that print the material from Wikileaks, are showing the US under the feckless but equally dangerous Secretary of State Clinton and the useless Mr. Rhetoric, President Obama, to be seen for what they really are, Israeli puppets.

So, come on, US Attorney-General, go and prosecute The Guardian, der Spiegel, New York Times, and the Sydney Morning Herald, just to name a few, No? Well then, why don’t you create a case against Assange by using the CIA. They are past masters of the ‘false flag’ along with their willing associate, Mossad in doing the US / Israel dirty work and perhaps try and blame Iran. It’s fashionable in 2010.

In the meantime, the the world will continue to believe the bleedin’ obvious, until proven otherwise
Posted by rexw, Thursday, 30 December 2010 8:47:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is clear to me that the US benefits if they can 1) criminalize Assange with rape charges that had previously been dropped in Sweden and 2) the techniques used such as major websites dropping Wikileaks and major credit card companies freezing his accounts are both techniques of which the US Department of Justice are infamous.

Of course, everyone knows that the Mossad is famous for using “honeytraps” to snag their victims. One of the women involved is now in Israel wearing a headscarf and supposedly supporting Christianity in Palestine. So I would want to know who the women are as it has been reported that at least one has ties to the CIA and another has Israeli ties. Anything is possible with the historically proven devious manipulations by these two countries.

One should remember that the US is still very much of a Puritan nation and that means that sex sells, porn is hot property, politicians and religious freaks call for Assange to be 'disappeared', so I am personally not surprised that this is the tactic used in the Assange witch trials.

Real cases of rampant rape such as in the US military are ignored but two dates in Sweden that ended with sexual activity are treated by Interpol with extreme urgency which also smacks of US pressure. As well, why was there no bail ruling for Assange in UK?

One could also add that the psychological torture that Pfc Manning would be undergoing is criminal. He has not been charged. He is held for the last 7 months in seclusion and allowed to speak only with interrogation officers conducting an inquisition. He is undergoing sleep deprivation. And all this is done to get Pfc Manning to incriminate Assange. I would expect that Manning is also being forced to take drugs to make him more compliant.

The US are masters at their craft!

Makes one proud to have them in a military alliance with Australia.

Perhaps Julian Assange’s charges against the US are not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it looks damnably suspicious to me.
Posted by rexw, Thursday, 30 December 2010 10:51:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are not the basic questions:

"Did Assange trick either of these two women into having sex without a condom"

"Did he damage the condom so that it was in effect 'not on' during the act?"

(ie did he circumvent 'informed consent' by their consenting to have protected sex but then going ahead unprotected)

"Did one of the two women wake up with Assange having sex with her without her providing informed consent to this particular act? (as a sleeping person cannot give consent- they may have consented to the act earlier, but not to this particular act of penetration)"

The sooner he faces his accusers in court the better, so that these questions can be answered. Otherwise what he is saying to the women of the world is that someone with sufficient ego should not have to conform with normal requirements of consent.

Perhaps it is Assange's strategy to claim conspiracy so that he does not have to deal with the real problem?
Posted by Dougthebear, Thursday, 30 December 2010 9:20:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard

What you say about the evil US may be true AND Assange could still be found guilty of assault, in any court, and do his time. Did he have sex with two women on terms with which they did not agree ? Honey-trap or otherwise, did he rape them, in Sweden, under Swedish law ? Yes/no ? CIA/Israeli spies or no ? If it had been you or I, in the same conditions, would we have been found guilty of the same offence ? If so, should we suffer the consequences ? Even if we were working for World Peace or Mother Teresa's mob ?

If he did not do as they accuse, then properly he should be found not guilty, of course. And even if he is extradited to Sweden to face those charges, he can't legally be shipped off to the US, without technically going back to Britain, i.e. without the approval of somebody like the British Attorney-General, whatever he/she may be called. Processes of extradiction to the US would have to involve Britain, not Sweden.
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 31 December 2010 5:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy