Just because 25% of eligible voters voted for you doesn’t mean you can make decisions that kill people. They should rot in jail if they have committed war crimes. They are probably too far removed from the operational decisions to be legally tied to the terrible decisions that kill(ed) many innocent people, but are trying to tie Assange to a hypothetical scenario where some operatives may have been endangered.
1 Like
Under US and Australian Laws, Presidents and PMs can legally make these decisions, and have done so for a very long time, with the support of a majority of their citizens.
Assange allegedly broke laws.
I’m not 100% sure what you mean by ‘these decisions’ Bacchus? I think you mean the decision to go to war, and the continuing decisions made as to how to fight that war. These decisions are not legal or moral because these decision makers got voted in by the people. International criminal law is not a popular election.
The charge against Assange - helped Manning break a password - or the ridiculous Swedish rape case where the woman said she wasn’t raped - is not worthy of the time, cost and effort that has been expended to get him to the US. They are trumped up charges to silence the whistle blower. Rather we should be uncovering more government corruption.
5 Likes
Presidents cannot unilaterally declare war.
Prime Ministers can.
Think about that: The US has a more rigorous process for going to war than we do.
Under the Constitution a declaration of war decision rests with GG (who is Commander in Chief of the military) acting on the advice of the Executive((Cabinet) PM cannot act unilaterallly, but decision does not need to go through Parliament.
2 Likes
There are some blinkered views in this thread but this can’t be let go. Did we learn nothing from the #metoo movement?
Can you explain this post please.
The case was dropped as it was baseless. The woman that Assange had consensual sex with said she was not raped. What Assange allegedly did was dishonest but it certainly wasn’t rape.
Three charges were dropped because the statute of limitations expired. The main rape charge was dropped because they saw no way of getting to him in the embassy but now he’s out the victim and her lawyers want to proceed. We shouldn’t downplay her or her claims
And sticking your ■■■■ in someone who is sleeping is rape
We might have different versions of the facts here.
When you invite a person into your bed, and you consent to sex with them and then you consent to them sleeping next to you, and then you consent again when they wake you up wanting more sex, that is not rape.
Her complaint was that he did not use a condom yet he stated at the time that he was, and her complaint came after she discovered he slept with another woman the night before. The charge of rape was made by the prosecution, not the victim, based on the idea that the victim did not consent to unprotected sex. The prosecution had numerous chances to interview Assange by video, but refused.
Based on these facts - maybe they aren’t the ‘real’ facts - I accept her claim that Assange was dishonest. I don’t accept this is grounds for a rape charge.
The condom thing was an assault charge which statute of limitations expired on. The rape was a second women and she was sleeping. Because he was in her bed it didn’t give him the right
1 Like
Is this the Gallagher case, BA? It’s bizarre (even for him!) that Trump intervened and lessened Gallagher’s pre-trial restrictions.
Yes. Trump could have cited the precedent of Manning getting improved conditions, although that was driven by media exposed outrage (and with possible legal implications, given the more rigorous jail conditions imposed on Manning)
Watching the Roberts-Smith case here
Of course they support their actions when they continually get told lies such as Iraq has wmd, Vietnamese fired at our ship, Russians are evil and one could go on. Everyone is made out to be the enemy with their people requiring America as a “saviour” because they don’t have “democracy”. They set the scene first by launching these narratives through the media to get their citizens on side, when in reality what they’re actually doing is pillaging countries for resources, often with the assistance of brutal terrorist groups/regimes. Assange threatened all these ideals, so he’s paying for it.
Leaders ordering pox wars for resources should be jailed. It’s a disgrace.
6 Likes
You reckon. The USA cannot wait to get their hands on him. He will be lucky to see the light of day. Do I think the Australian Government will step in for him? I DOUBT IT!!!
This PM when the Liberal Treasurer, signed away Darwin Harbour to the Chinese on a very long lease. Do you honestly believe he won’t hand Assange over to the yanks, to do as they will???
Wrong. The case was dropped twice by two different prosecutors. If you actually read a bit more about this case, it because more obvious that it was a stitch up.
We now know due to FOIA that the CPS was pressuring Sweden to keep the case open for no apparent reason. The statute of limitations for the case expires in around 2021 I believe.
Assange has always maintained that he would be happy to be interviewed in London or go to Sweden so long as he was safeguarded from onward extradition, this was never guaranteed and he was right to stay in the embassy given what we now know about U.S indictments.
You know when you allege conspiracy in everything your credibility drops?
Two women decided that what happened to them was not ok and went to the police. There is no conspiracy in that
Good point.
Please take this to the CIA and the US Justice Department who will make just this allegation against Assange.
Without wanting to indulge in conspiracies, who do you think has spent many millions in doing so - these agencies or FO50?
1 Like
Did you even read my post? Everything I wrote is backed up by fact.
The original prosecutor Eva Finne interviewed Assange in Sweden and allowed him to leave back to London - FACT.
CPS heavily interfered with the investigation once it was picked up by Marianne Ny - FACT
My arguments aren’t that the two women are full of ■■■■, you claimed that the charges were dropped because the “statute of limitations” had expired. I corrected that - they were dropped within days by the original prosecutor, Eva Finne and eventually dropped by Marianne Ny in 2017, both times because there wasn’t enough evidence for sexual ‘molestation’.
This 4 Corners is quite old and doesn’t cover more recent events RE: Sweden but it’s a very balanced view on what actually happened
2 Likes
Assange has lost all credibility afaiac.
I mean sure locked up of his own volition for 7 years a guy would want the company of a woman.
Thats understandable.
But the choice of woman. Argh.
Exactly who is trying to enhance their credibility in that relationship? I suppose we all realise that sexual favour can be a form of currency, right?
