Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraws asylum.

[Dalton]

Okay kids, gather round.

I have looked at this thread and spoken to a couple of people involved. I have asked Elfdart to address what NecronLord has asked. I have assured him that he will not face any punishment for doing this.

I also would like to address TRR here. You called Elfdart a rape apologist. That is unfair and beyond the line. While I am no fan of the conduct of anyone here, including Elfdart, calling him a rape apologist is a dick move.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Elfdart]

DR5 (Back up your Claims)

While there have been various issues in this thread, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if you wish to continue to participate in this thread Elfdart, you should straight out say under what circumstances it would be suitable, in your mind for Assange, or another activist wanted by the United States government should be brought for trial.

I would have thought that the bolded parts below (from my earlier posts in the thread) explained my position on extradition to the USA clearly and concisely to anyone who can read plain American English:

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.

And when it comes to extradition to Sweden:

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.

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.

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.

Now maybe I should have bolded and used the larger font when I first posted them. But I can't read the minds of others, nor can I force you to read something if you choose to ignore it.

It appears from reading your posts that you are saying that the risk of maladministration of justice in his instance as a pretext to bring him into the hands of the United States government, should wholly exculpate him from being brought to trial for accusations of rape.

Again, only someone with a very limited ability to read would have a problem judging what my position is on the subject. The only other explanation is that someone is being very dishonest, either by claiming to have read my posts when they haven't OR by pretending they meant something other than what I wrote. Nowhere did I suggest Assange or anyone else gets a free pass because they did a good deed before and I'd like to see you offer a quote from me where I so much as hint at such a thing.

Elfdart, you were asked to provide an answer for what circumstances, if any, you feel would warrant extradition of Mr Assange. You have not provided this answer, but have returned to the thread and posted on an unrelated line of inquiry.

I am giving you a formal warning for violation of DR5.

Back Up Your Claims. If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claims.

Simply refusing to answer when instructed to do so and resuming the debate on a different point is evasion.

---

What "statement of fact" have I NOT supplied evidence for? Be specific. I have stated my opinion that Assange should not be extradited and why. I have done so repeatedly, as the quotes above show. While you're at it, please explain how someone -ANYONE- can provide evidence for an opinion. Next you'll be demanding I provide proof of my favorite color. This makes no sense whatsoever. If this was your way of demanding that I explain WHY I opposed extradition to Sweden or the US, it was obvious to anyone who read my posts that I had already done so, repeatedly. So much so that honest to goodness I thought a mod might drop the elbow on me for Broken Record tactics if I did it again.

You owe me an apology.

You know what, can we get a mod to weigh in here? Is it considered dishonesty on this board to cite the Mueller report because some portions of it have been redacted?

Note: In the highly unlikely event that the answer is "yes", I will ask that my account on this forum be permanently closed.

My official answer in my capacity as a moderator is that it is not in any way considered dishonesty. The redaction may be relevant and is a reasonable topic for debate and conjecture, but it is a judicial document and a valid source for information inasmuch as any other is.

Feel free to PM for questions of this nature as it will likely result in a quicker response in future.

Only that's not what he did. He implied that he read the report (he hasn't) and that it supports his claims. Now that he's been caught in a lie, he admits he read "Mueller's opening summary on Russia". I thought board policy was that if someone cites a text as evidence for their claims, they had to provide a quote, link or some other way for others to look at their evidence.

[Elfdart]

Elfdart during this entire thread you downplayed that Assange only fled Sweden to escape being charged with rape,

That which is presented without evidence can be rejected without evidence. You say fleeing rape charges is his only reason to seek asylum. Evidence please.

and you’ve ignored that a.) people have already been indicted based on investigations that occurred during the Mueller Report b.) that Mueller stated there was proof of corruption but legal mechanisms blocked them from bringing charges c.) Barr admitted he never read the evidence before deciding it cleared trump d.) Barr has a history of protecting guilty people in power e.) Barr redacted most of the report (which he wouldn’t have to do if he had nothing to hide)

What does any of that have to do with Assange's arrest? I guess you could also say I "ignored" the Tony Awards, since I didn't discuss them in this thread either -on the grounds that it has Jack Shit to do with the subject. But please, do meander on.

f.) ignored that Assange did show favoritism to the republicans in 2010

I loathe Republicans as much as anyone, but preferring them is legal, last time I checked.

or g.) actively endangered people with some of his leaks (leaking the names of gay activists in countries where homophobia is widespread.)

Evidence please.

So you’ve defended a man who most likely raped people

I've defended the right of a suspect to due process of law without the spectre of rendition, torture, barbarous treatment or being found conveniently hanged in his cell loomng over him.

and pretended that Trump wasn’t nearly as corrupt as he is.

No, dipshit -I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories because >99% of them are horseshit and so far there's been nothing to suggest the "OMG Trump Is Teh Rushin Spyz!" story belongs in that exceptional 1%. It's like George W. Bush. I can't stand that sadistic, warmongering asshole. That's why I often referred to him as the Crawford Caligula or worse. But all the conspiracy theories about him blowing up the World Trade Center were moronic, no matter how many fucktards squealed "Building Seven!" at the top of their lungs.

[The Romulan Republic]

Again, only someone with a very limited ability to read would have a problem judging what my position is on the subject. The only other explanation is that someone is being very dishonest, either by claiming to have read my posts when they haven't OR by pretending they meant something other than what I wrote. Nowhere did I suggest Assange or anyone else gets a free pass because they did a good deed before and I'd like to see you offer a quote from me where I so much as hint at such a thing.

Oh, I agree, its very easy to judge your position on the subject, your subsequent attempts at obfuscation notwithstanding.

But I'll leave it to Necronlord to handle this, since it was his warning you implied was due to illiteracy or dishonesty.

Only that's not what he did. He implied that he read the report (he hasn't) and that it supports his claims. Now that he's been caught in a lie, he admits he read "Mueller's opening summary on Russia". I thought board policy was that if someone cites a text as evidence for their claims, they had to provide a quote, link or some other way for others to look at their evidence.

I told no lie (freely acknowledging the extent, and limits, of my knowledge is "getting caught in a lie", now? ). And I am not aware of any board policy that I must have read an entire document to cite a relevant portion of it with which I am familiar.

The summaries are just that: a (fairly detailed) summary at the start of each volume of the report of the information that volume contains. The first covers Russia, the second obstruction. Which you would know if you read the report.

Just because I'm not allowed to call you a rape apologist for suggesting that enemies of the United States should get to walk on rape charges does not mean that you are now allowed to libel me. In fact, I'd like a moderator to weigh on this as well- again, am I guilty of lying or otherwise violating board rules in citing the Mueller Report, or is Elfdart libeling me?

As to quotes: what particular claim have I made regarding the contents of the Mueller report that you doubt the credibility of? I cannot be reasonably expected to quote an entire 400+ page document to meet your petulant demands, but I'm more than willing to quote relevant passages just for the pleasure of rubbing your faux Leftist face in it.

Here's a link to the full report, which you are more than welcome to read for yourself (don't worry, I know you won't):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics ... index.html

[Dalton]

[Dalton]

When I say "CUT THE SHIT" I FUCKING MEAN IT