Assange Vs Takky

[Wallenda]

Robaus, I realize in this situation some people would get upset and say nasty things, but instead I'd like to just point the problem out to you and ask you if you think you fairly characterized what I had posted.

 

You said:

 

>>First here, you're taking one detail ("he hasn't been charged") and turning it into something it is not.

 

...That is exactly what you are doing: listing the allegations as though they are established facts. Assange has denied it. So, at the end of the day, this is a "he said, she said" situation.

 

the key phrase here is 'That is exactly what you are doing: listing the allegations as though they are established facts'

 

In the post that you refer to, what I said immediately before that list was this:

 

He is currently wanted for 4 separate accusations, one of which was officially stated as 'rape' by the Swedish court. Here they are, and if you disagree with any of the below, you are in disagreement with the Swedish court: [followed by the long, detailed list]

 

You can see, I listed them as 'accusations' and I said that they were according to the Swedish court.

 

Accusation and allegation mean the same thing. (I'm not sure how proficient you are in English so I'm considering that this could be the problem with these 2 words). Accusation does not mean 'established fact', that one I'm sure you know.

 

There is one thing I did say there which was actually incorrect--I referred to the accusations as being from the Swedish court. In fact, they are according to the European Arrest Warrant, which does carry (I expect you agree) more legal weight than one might describe as "he said she said". The words were actually written by the prosecutor and not a judge. I thought it was the court that wrote it, but went back and saw that it was the EAW, which is what the British courts were responding to. Either way, the list is as official as accusations can be.

 

But the main point again: I never said anything even close to that they are established facts. If you believe, as you seem to, that accusations and established facts are 2 different things, then it follows that you would agree that you mischaracterized what I said.

 

And then there's the issue (for another time) that you seem to have the word "allegations" mixed up with "hearsay" or something. In other words, there's such a thing as serious allegations, and that's what these are.

[bust]

Not sure if this was posted anywhere on the board. I take my hat off to him.

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-on-U-K-intentions-and.html

[Wallenda]

Ok so I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and think that Robaus unintentionally misrepresented what I said, but obviously he's seen this by now, and when a guy is guilty of something like that, of falsely describing what I said and then attacking the false version he put in my mouth, he's got a responsibility to address it. Own up to it.

 

The really long list of points on Assange's side are, of course, according to his side. I guess guys posting here don't live in countries where criminal cases get decided based on the testimony of one side only, and decided by the suspect himself.

 

Maybe it's judicial process itself that you guys are opposed to.

 

Just an interesting note about Assange's lawyer. In the British court hearing his Swedish attorney said that he (the lawyer) was not informed until the 27th that Assange was wanted for interrogation. The Swedish prosecutor countered that that was not true and asked him to check his mobile phone's messages. He responded that he did not have messages going back that far. He was asked if he could please check any way. A recess was calleld for him to do that in the presence of the judge. On checking, the message from the prosecutor was found right there in his messages (on the 22nd, if I remember right--earlier than the 27th in any case), and also a 2nd message which was a response from the prosecutor to Assange's attorney's response (since deleted) to the 1st message. He apologized to the court and acknowledged how bad that looked. In other words, he was caught lying about a key event in the process. The reason for the lie is pretty obvious, they didn't want it to appear that Assange left Sweden knowing that he was wanted for interrogation. So it seems to me that it's only Assange and his lawyer's story that he was unaware he was wanted for interrogation when he left, and the attorney's word on that is already very tainted.