Julian Assange arrest warrant upheld by court

a reply to: Jay-morris

Your points have no foundation in law. When you come back with a valid argument I will respond. Absent that I am not getting back on your treadmill.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Jay-morris

Your points have no foundation in law. When you come back with a valid argument I will respond. Absent that I am not getting back on your treadmill.

Absolutely ridiculous! It is amazing how the justice system turns into this amazing thing, when it means that someone you hate can go down for a crime he did not commit.

Yes, please ignore me because people like you are just blinded by their beliefs, and easily conditioned!

I brought up cases where the justice system is faulty, esp when it involves powerful, influential people.

Seriously, like debating with a brick wall!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Absolutely ridiculous! It is amazing how the justice system turns into this amazing thing, when it means that someone you hate can go down for a crime he did not commit.

I doubt the justice system gives a toss about what Xcathdra thinks.

We are sort of going around in circles with this.

I think Assange's innocence or guilt can only be properly tested in a court. Whether that's the rape allegations if they went to court in Sweden, or his impending arrest for skipping bail which is applicable to England.

You think he's innocent of all crime. Squeaky clean. A man who has done no wrong and anyone accusing him of rape is a liar. We all know that rapists are the lowest of the low, but in Assange's case there is no case to answer because it's all made up and clearly going to court to argue his case is just a ruse. All courts are corrupt and judges are all out to get him. So is the jury. We know this because Assange made a statement to that effect and that's all the proof we need.

Have I summed this up accurately?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Absolutely ridiculous! It is amazing how the justice system turns into this amazing thing, when it means that someone you hate can go down for a crime he did not commit.

I doubt the justice system gives a toss about what Xcathdra thinks.

We are sort of going around in circles with this.

I think Assange's innocence or guilt can only be properly tested in a court. Whether that's the rape allegations if they went to court in Sweden, or his impending arrest for skipping bail which is applicable to England.

You think he's innocent of all crime. Squeaky clean. A man who has done no wrong and anyone accusing him of rape is a liar. We all know that rapists are the lowest of the low, but in Assange's case there is no case to answer because it's all made up and clearly going to court to argue his case is just a ruse. All courts are corrupt and judges are all out to get him. So is the jury. We know this because Assange made a statement to that effect and that's all the proof we need.

Have I summed this up accurately?

Going by the text messages, then Yes, it is 100% made up, no doubt about it.

So answer me this. Why would Assange go to Sweden, to face trail, when that exact system pressured the claim? If you were in his shoes, surely you would be asking the same questions, and very fearful of going there.

He would be an idiot to go back there. And then, that leads to the other question. Why were they so desperate to get him, to the point, as the text messages showed, pressured the so called victim.

If you cannot see that there is another agenda here, you never will

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Going by the text messages, then Yes, it is 100% made up, no doubt about it.

Yawn. Like I said we're going around in circles.

The text messages you cite were provided by Assange. Assange says they prove his innocence, so that's good enough for you. Think it through. Of course Assange would say he did not do it.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Going by the text messages, then Yes, it is 100% made up, no doubt about it.

Yawn. Like I said we're going around in circles.

The text messages you cite were provided by Assange. Assange says they prove his innocence, so that's good enough for you. Think it through. Of course Assange would say he did not do it.

If they are text messages, then yes, that is evidence. Easily they can be confirmed if logged with no problem.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Going by the text messages, then Yes, it is 100% made up, no doubt about it.

Yawn. Like I said we're going around in circles.

The text messages you cite were provided by Assange. Assange says they prove his innocence, so that's good enough for you. Think it through. Of course Assange would say he did not do it.

If they are text messages, then yes, that is evidence. Easily they can be confirmed if logged with no problem.

and how did Assange obtain the texts?

Let me help -
If someone from the legal system in Sweden leaked then then it is a crime.
If Assange obtained them through his methods then it is a crime.
If the messages were modified by someone then it is a crime.

Setting aside the above argument and going with your version, that the text messages show the women lied. That situation would be in Assange's favor in a courtroom.

Now my other question is what other evidence does the prosecutor have on Assange?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
If they are text messages, then yes, that is evidence.

And for a court to scrutinise. Nothing worse than "internet-juries". Oh, by all means form a view, but evidence in a crime is something that a court and a jury need to review and consider.

That's the root of our difference. I think a court / legal process should review the facts, while you (and others) believe the "evidence" filtered by Assange is the only source of truth.

BOLLOX to this :

the assange appologists in this thread are utterly clueless - yup thats an insult

you do not even know what assanges own claims were .

i quit - wallow in your ignorance

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
BOLLOX to this :

the assange appologists in this thread are utterly clueless - yup thats an insult

you do not even know what assanges own claims were .

i quit - wallow in your ignorance

LOL you could not have picked a better user name!

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
If they are text messages, then yes, that is evidence.

And for a court to scrutinise. Nothing worse than "internet-juries". Oh, by all means form a view, but evidence in a crime is something that a court and a jury need to review and consider.

That's the root of our difference. I think a court / legal process should review the facts, while you (and others) believe the "evidence" filtered by Assange is the only source of truth.

Have you listened to anything I have said? Why would any rational human being go back to the same same country for trail, when that same country tried to frame him for rape? Even the "victim" said she was forced. Where is the logic in that?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Going by the text messages, then Yes, it is 100% made up, no doubt about it.

Yawn. Like I said we're going around in circles.

The text messages you cite were provided by Assange. Assange says they prove his innocence, so that's good enough for you. Think it through. Of course Assange would say he did not do it.

If they are text messages, then yes, that is evidence. Easily they can be confirmed if logged with no problem.

and how did Assange obtain the texts?

Let me help -
If someone from the legal system in Sweden leaked then then it is a crime.
If Assange obtained them through his methods then it is a crime.
If the messages were modified by someone then it is a crime.

Setting aside the above argument and going with your version, that the text messages show the women lied. That situation would be in Assange's favor in a courtroom.

Now my other question is what other evidence does the prosecutor have on Assange?

At the end of the day, the messages prove he is innocent, and also prove that the powers that be had something to do with this. So why would he go back there for a trail.

Would you? I do not think So!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Why would any rational human being go back to the same same country for trail, when that same country tried to frame him for rape? Even the "victim" said she was forced. Where is the logic in that?

The circle again.

You think he's been framed, but let the Swedish court decide that. Let the defence articulate all the points you have raised as evidence. If the evidence that you have been drip fed from Assange is so clear that he's incontrovertibly innocent, then why does he not move on it? Clearly Assange is incapable of rape and the women are liars. This is of course what many alleged rapists say, but hey, Assange is different.

Oh, of course. It's all a fix. Even if he's guilty, and is found guilty, he'll be innocent in the eyes of those who have considered he's innocent. Exactly what part of Sweden's judicial system has been corrupted so much that a celebrity will be stitched up in the eyes of the world's press?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Why would any rational human being go back to the same same country for trail, when that same country tried to frame him for rape? Even the "victim" said she was forced. Where is the logic in that?

The circle again.

You think he's been framed, but let the Swedish court decide that. Let the defence articulate all the points you have raised as evidence. If the evidence that you have been drip fed from Assange is so clear that he's incontrovertibly innocent, then why does he not move on it? Clearly Assange is incapable of rape and the women are liars. This is of course what many alleged rapists say, but hey, Assange is different.

Oh, of course. It's all a fix. Even if he's guilty, and is found guilty, he'll be innocent in the eyes of those who have considered he's innocent. Exactly what part of Sweden's judicial system has been corrupted so much that a celebrity will be stitched up in the eyes of the world's press?

Let me get this right. If he was framed ( which is extremely likely) Are you saying the Swedish court is above the ones who framed him?

I will Bring up Jimmy Savile again. He raped, sexually assaulted hundreds of children over decades. Celebs knew, BBC knew, the police knew, but he gets away with it, all because he was in with other powerful and influential child abusers. He was above the law. And this is not just UK, corruption and injustice is everywhere.

So, he would be an idiot to go back to Sweden.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Let me get this right. If he was framed ( which is extremely likely)

Why do you think Assange has been framed? For that to be the case the two women are liars. Let that be exposed in court when evidence is examined. Is it that difficult?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Let me get this right. If he was framed ( which is extremely likely)

Why do you think Assange has been framed? For that to be the case the two women are liars. Let that be exposed in court when evidence is examined. Is it that difficult?

It is not that they are just lies, read the text messages. There was pressure there too. Why would there be pressure by authorities?

You just do not seem to understand this fact. I am sure, no, it am positive that if you were in his shoes, or anyone else, there is no way you would set foot in Sweden. If you say you would, you are either not bright, or lying.

Read the messages and tell me that this has nothing to do with a higher agenda?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is not that they are just lies, read the text messages.

I have done so, as stated. These texts are embedded within a statement from Assange which will have obviously been selective. My point (which I repeat) is that this is just evidence that needs to be exposed in court, where the veracity and context can be properly scrutinised. If Assange is so confident of his innocence then he needs to prove it, otherwise he's just an alleged rapist.

It is crass stupidity to take the word of an alleged rapist without testing that word in court.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think he did break several US laws and should be prosecuted for it.

So in which case you think he should be extradited to the US so that can happen.
Thought as much...The same goes with Snowden right?

So much for whistle blowing to people like you...

keep sticking up for the corrupt powers that shouldn’t be though, I’ll know where to aim when SHTF.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is not that they are just lies, read the text messages.

I have done so, as stated. These texts are embedded within a statement from Assange which will have obviously been selective. My point (which I repeat) is that this is just evidence that needs to be exposed in court, where the veracity and context can be properly scrutinised. If Assange is so confident of his innocence then he needs to prove it, otherwise he's just an alleged rapist.

It is crass stupidity to take the word of an alleged rapist without testing that word in court.

You are not listening!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
You are not listening!

Oh you poor thing. I am listening. I just don't think alleged rapists should escape their time in court.