General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGotta Admit... I'm Pretty Baffled By The Split And Depth Of Feeling Re:The Assange/WikiLeaks Story
And I'm wondering if it is generational... gender driven... what ???
And I have no idea how to poll it.
So if you'd be so kind... could you put three pieces of information in your subject bar if you choose to respond ???
The year you graduated high school, your gender, and whether you IN GENERAL...
Side with Assange and Wikileaks, or side with the various governments trying in interrogate Assange, et.al.
Mine would say:
1973, Male, Sides With Assange
If I felt differently, mine might say:
1973, Male, Sides With Government
The reason for the high school grad date versus birthdate, is because it gives one an idea what era one was in when they were becoming politically aware/active. When I was graduating from HS Watergate and the Vietnam War were in full swing, and we were used to the government lying to us. But that may not be other people's experience.
Thanks in advance !!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Peregrine
(992 posts)Did he solicit the information from Bradley. Or did Bradley give the info to wiki leaked?
If it is the latter, wouldn't it be like the Times publishing the Pentagon Papers?
CabCurious
(954 posts)My understanding is that Bradley reached out about having access to encrypted files and he wanted to blow a specific story about things going on in Iraq. They asked him to give everything he could get his hands on and promised to decrypt it.
So, in my view, they manipulated him into handing over hundreds of thousands of files when he wasn't even aware of what was in them.
That's not whistle blowing.
That's blind treason... when you're indiscriminately releasing classified information. And I don't think Bradley would have done that if he hasn't been convinced that Assange was trustworthy (which he wasn't).
Assange hasn't even released the bank records he promised.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 19, 2012, 06:46 PM - Edit history (1)
give up their witch hunt.
Read the OP wrong:
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)and find it strange how vehemently Julian and his fans think he is above it.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Or like Romney is above the tax laws?
treestar
(82,383 posts)They aren't. And neither is Julian.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)retinues.
niyad
(129,736 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And US law if there is jurisdiction.
niyad
(129,736 posts)saying international law tells me absolutely nothing
metalbot
(1,058 posts)He's in the Ecuadorian embassy because he does not want to be subject to British law, which if allowed to run it's course, would involved in him being extradited to Sweden. He's in violation of British law for failure to appear at his extradition hearing.
The only real way forward here for him is to go to Sweden and face charges if necessary. I don't believe that Sweden is going to support an extra-judicial extradition to US forces, especially given the high profile of this case. If the US had a case that would support judicial extradition, they'd have changed him and asked the UK for extradition.
I think the powers that be in the US government are laughing their asses off over him imprisoning himself in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is a far better detention result than they could possibly have hoped for in the US.
niyad
(129,736 posts)you can think what you want about what sweden will or won't do, your non-expert opinion does not change the facts of this situation.
tell me, do you honestly think that this whole circus has nothing to do with wikileaks, that ANY ordinary person accused (not charged, accused) in one country would be subject to what assange has experienced?
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)its basically just to present the case to him before arrest and charges are brought.
secondly Assange is the one that has dragged this on as long as it has, not Sweden. Assange lost at each step on the way in British court on resisting the extradition order and appealed time and time again using any and all means to try and overturn it.
Would you expect Sweden or other countries to just throw their hands up after so and so many appeals and go 'Ok you win, we won't try to get you sent to our country for trial'.
I mean seriously what kind of signal would that send "hey, come to our country and commit crimes before fleeing, if you fight the extradition order its likely we will just give up trying to have you stand trial"
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)and they don't open theirs? This is overly idealistic. We would have no national security at all.
tama
(9,137 posts)that you think national security trumps 1st amendment and hate Assange? No need to answer, the question was rhetorical. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)You really think we have no need of national security? Would you jump for joy to see more terrorist attacks against us?
tama
(9,137 posts)"National security" is another name for state terrorism against We The People.
I don't know how 9/11 really happened, but the official story is anything but plausible, and the main consequence - and purpose - of the incident was unprecedented amount of state terrorism and government secrecy against people and wars in foreign countries that have killed millions and profited the MIC, in the name of "national security".
Do you work for the military industry?
treestar
(82,383 posts)We can't just let it all hang out. Other countries would get it. Where I work is irrelevant, that amounts to mere personal attack and doesn't answer your astonishing assertion that you think we can do with NO SECURITY WHATSOEVER!
We may spend too much on the military. Be we can't do with no military at all!
And we have to be able to classify some information. It is not the year 1012, it is 2012.
tama
(9,137 posts)I do understand your way of thinking - which is basically same as Görings:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring
Of course Göring was right, as the history of Bush wars proves. Only real obstacle to fear mongering public into wars a la Herman is freedom of information and government transparency that makes it impossible or difficult enough to cock up the lies and keep them credible enough so that public can be sold the wars and MIC can be kept fat and happy.
I have made no secret of my position, how ever weird and extreme it may sound from your point of view. I'm social libertarian aka anarchist who does not only believe that we need nation states and governments and hierarchies and authorities to begin with, but that they are inherently evil social structures. Of course you don't have to be social libertarian to oppose Göring's logic and standard government practice of it, I just find anarchism most logically consistent and emotionally and psychologically sound political philosophy. With heart in the right place.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We all know what that means.
Though I don't know what the heck that has to do with the fact that we still have to have some sort of military in today's world. You're being really idealistic. I'm no republican, and they may have exaggerated, but there really are people out there who we need to defend ourselves from.
We may have gone overboard due to 911, but that doesn't mean we can do without a military and a state and that there aren't going to be facts it has to classify.
the supposed external threat of "people out there" is the justification. That is exactly the same logic as Göring exposed in the Nûrnberg interview. Your justification is fear mongering. There is nothing to fear but fear itself. The fear mongerers.
"Invoking Nazis" means that if we are wise we study history so that it does not repeat itself in unwanted ways. And it does not really matter who said it, what matters is that it is true and we have seen it repeated ad nauseam.
brush
(61,033 posts)Sometimes you have to go against the law for justice to happen, for example; the Pentagon Papers, the Civil Rights demonstrators, the Viet Nam war protestors, and on and on. Assange exposed the dirty dealings of a lot of powerful people and they don't like it. I feel that's why he's being persecuted.
struggle4progress
(125,389 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)Are you dense? Who mentioned anything about laws against rape and sexual assault? I wrote about protests like "the Pentagon Papers being published, perhaps violating a law but waking the public up about the injustices being perpetrated in the name of the American people in Vietnam. The Civil Rights demonstrators of the 60s also broke Jim Crow laws to fight racism, and do I have to explain the Viet Nam war protestors, many of whom were jailed? These examples, especially the publishing of the Pentagon Papers are very similar to what Assange did with Wiki Leaks.
struggle4progress
(125,389 posts)so the natural interpretation of your view -- "you have to go against the law for justice to happen" -- is that you regard the laws against rape and sexual assault to be fundamentally unjust
brush
(61,033 posts)Legal process or legal railroading, who knows, but there certainly seems to be a huge array of powerful, international forces determined to shut Assange and WikiLeaks up. The sexual assault charges may or may not be true but they certainly are convenient.
struggle4progress
(125,389 posts)The Swedish authorities made repeated efforts to schedule a second interview with Assange before taking out a warrant in mid-November 2010. Stockholm District Court issued an arrest order; Assange challenged the order in the Svea Court of Appeal -- and lost. Assange challenged the warrant in the City of Westminster Magistrates Court and lost; he appealed to the High Court and lost; he appealed again to the Supreme Court and lost; the Supreme Court then allowed him to reargue a point and he lost that as well. He had a fortnight to further appeal to Strasbourg but elected instead to jump bail and hide in the Ecuadorian embassy
brush
(61,033 posts)It doesn't seem too convenient to you that these charges are brought against a guy who exposed the dirty dealings of powerful people in the governments of several countries. That's just a coincidence to you?
struggle4progress
(125,389 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 04:38 AM - Edit history (1)
Get real! I never said that. But quite a few people around the world have a problem with these charges coming after he released international dirt that, IMO, needed to come to light. The MSM no longer functions independently since they've been bought up by corporations so it's up to others to be the watchdog who "comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable", the traditional role of journalists.
struggle4progress
(125,389 posts)court and was upheld on Assange's appeal, and though he was out on bail while the UK courts spent well over a year allowing him to contest the warrant
Your argument is apparently that he has offended lots of people, exposing some of their secrets, and therefore no one can possibly have a legitimate case against him
But trading in other people's secrets is a tricky business. Sometimes, people, who trade in other people's secrets, are convicted of crimes like blackmail. At other times, such people can become loathsome power brokers
You might want to think carefully about why a person wants other people's secrets and what a person can do with other people's secrets: a good case study is J Edgar Hoover, who seems to have had certain personal secrets he wanted preserved -- and who seems to have set out to protect his own secrets by learning about other people's secrets, then using what he learned to enhance his own power
This fact, that Assange is obsessed with collecting other people's secrets and getting credit for exposing those secrets, may tell you more about Assange's character than you think -- and what it tells you may not be entirely flattering
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)on matters pertaining to US secrecy?
He can't be a traitor because he is not an American and therefore cannot betray the US.
He can't be a spy because he simply accepted information dumped on his website and published it generally for the whole world and did not use it secretly to harm the US.
If he were an American, then I could understand that he should obey US law.
If an American were to obtain secrets from North Korea or Al Qaeda and publish them, would we allow the American to be prosecuted for violating the laws of North Korea or of Al Qaeda? (I know that is absurd, but you understand what I mean.)
I have pointed this out a number of times and never received any answer. I don't understand how people can't comprehend the concept of nationality and legal jurisdiction. Assange's actions affected American authorities, but he is not alleged to have committed any crime in the US and he is not American. Very odd.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Even if he was a US person living in the US, his actions are not illegal. This should be obvious, because no media outlet in the US has been prosecuted for re-publishing Wikileaks material.
So "follow US law" is a complete red herring. US law hasn't been broken. That's why the US hasn't sought extradition - there's nothing to extradite him for.
Instead, Assange and his allies are asserting that the US is trying to get a hold of him. Because EVIL!!!!!
The guy's story doesn't add up. If it was a Republican with the same story, the entire board would be mocking him.
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't believe we try to extradite them to the U.S., do we?
tama
(9,137 posts)are protected by their governments and don't publish the secrets on internet for ordinary people to read. Assange is not spy but a journalist and editor and not protected by Aussie gov, which labelled him as criminal when the cables came out. When real spies get cought, they are often exchanged to other spies. But not the Cuban six, who are not real spies but political prisoners of US.
randome
(34,845 posts)I don't see Assange as a journalist, however. He talked Manning into giving him documents. Not much investigation went on there other than to find someone gullible enough to give him what he wanted.
tama
(9,137 posts)Assange has done also lots of other journalistic work and received many awards for his journalistic work. From Wikipedia:
Awards
Assange received the 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Award (New Media),[210] for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya by distributing and publicizing the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)'s investigation Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances.[211][212][10] Accepting the award, Assange said, "It is a reflection of the courage and strength of Kenyan civil society that this injustice was documented."[213]
In 2010, Assange was awarded the Sam Adams Award,[214][215] Readers' Choice in TIME magazine's Person of the Year poll,[14] and runner-up for Person of the Year.[216] In April 2011 he was listed on the Time 100 list of most influential people.[217] An informal poll of editors at Postmedia Network named him the top newsmaker for the year after six out of 10 felt Assange had "affected profoundly how information is seen and delivered".[218]
Le Monde, one of the five publications to cooperate with WikiLeaks' publication of the recent document leaks, named him person of the year with fifty six percent of the votes in their online poll.[219][220][221]
In February 2011, it was announced that Assange had been awarded the Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal by the Sydney Peace Foundation of the University of Sydney for his "exceptional courage and initiative in pursuit of human rights."[222] There have been four recipients of the award in the foundation's fourteen year history: Nelson Mandela; the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso; Daisaku Ikeda; and Assange.[222]
In June 2011, Assange was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. The prize is awarded on an annual basis to journalists "whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or 'official drivel'". The judges said, "WikiLeaks has been portrayed as a phenomenon of the hi-tech age, which it is. But it's much more. Its goal of justice through transparency is in the oldest and finest tradition of journalism."[223]
Snorre Valen, a Norwegian parliamentarian, told media he had proposed him for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.[224]
In November 2011, he was awarded the 2011 Walkleys Award in the category Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism. The annual Walkley Awards honour excellence in journalism and the Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism, awarded since 1994, recognises commitment and achievement in the Australian media. [225][226]
struggle4progress
(125,389 posts)
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)You said a lot with very few words.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)As far as I'm concerned, Assange didn't run away from the law, he ran to the law. A higher law - international norms and treaties protecting human rights, as the laws in the UK and Sweden are being perverted to unjustly deprive a man of his freedom, and possibly his life, because he exposed the dirty laundry of powerful people.
Equador seems to be the only country that acknowledges Assange is being unjustly persecuted, and have made their legal recourse - asylum, available to him.
CabCurious
(954 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)If it were running from some place like Saudi Arabia or Turkey and a charge having to do with political opinion/expression, that might be different.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)I'm sure you'll find their opinion enlightening!
treestar
(82,383 posts)I don't see it would be the norm today.
CabCurious
(954 posts)because of some USA conspiracy theory.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)My real distrust of government didn't occur until the Bush election theft. And the Iraq invasion utterly destroyed any credibility that remained.
tama
(9,137 posts)The phenomenon has been so wide, that it now seems that gov's don't anymore really care about their credibility as anything just and honest and decent. Just their credibility of being feared. Fear is all they got left.
CabCurious
(954 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 20, 2012, 01:30 AM - Edit history (1)
I'm also Canadian which may make a bit of a difference.
Edited for graduation, not birth, date. D'oh!
riverbendviewgal
(4,389 posts)also Canadian.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)Hangin' with the Canadian contingent. 
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Not even against the law here. And it is Sweden's willingness to have him extradited to the US that is keeping him from facing that charge. This debate is about the US charges not the unwilling to use a condom charge.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Penetration of a woman who was asleep and thus unable to consent. Do try to keep up. And there are no US charges. There is no pending US extradition.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And you know damn well the US is trying to extradite him.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)of which you are apparently ignorant.
And if the US were "trying to extradite him" they'd have him already. The UK would cooperate, probably more readily than Sweden.
niyad
(129,736 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)If you've seen that it's just "about a broken condom", and that there's no question of rape, then you're misinformed or uninformed.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)This isn't even date rape. There was no allegation of rape until the State Prosecutor cooked it up after Assange left Sweden.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Consent once given is not permanent; consent to intercourse while awake is NOT consent to being penetrated while sleeping, nor is consensual intercourse contingent on use of a condom consent to being penetrated without one. This is rape under not only Swedish law, but English law and also US law. The High Court in the UK found that the alleged offence constitutes rape.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html
It is also rape under US law. See:
http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/1000/1003.html
http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2005/18ftoc/180610001.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920
leveymg
(36,418 posts)as she had already consented to intercourse and to sleep with him. Further sex on the same occasion that she had consented isn't rape, regardless of whether she fell asleep at some point. That happens all the time between consenting adults, and isn't rape.
The issue of whether he wore a condum is a different matter. That was unethical of him, but it isn't rape. Reckless endangerment, perhaps, if he actually has some sort of STD, but I don't think there's any evidence of that. The State Prosecutor bent the law to go after him, and there is a political agenda behind that.
Sorry, I know you and few others here would like to see Assange swing for his offense of exposing the real crimes of state and powerful men, but we're not going to cheer at the gallows alongside you.
Response to leveymg (Reply #145)
Post removed
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If you can show me the law that says that once someone consents to sexual intercourse and falls asleep that the law requires some sort of affirmative signal before reentry, then I will agree with you that it's rape.
But, there is no such law -- here, there, or anywhere -- so, it isn't rape.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Under Swedish law, continued intercourse after withdrawal of consent following consensual sexual contact constitutes rape. And a sleeping person cannot consent. She was asleep and woke up to find his cock in her. I'm not sure on what planet that can be said to be "consensual". Relevant as a model is the law in California. Section 261 of the California Penal Code:
(4)Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(A)Was unconscious or asleep.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261
(NB that the same standards apply in spousal rape which is treated in section 262).
re withdrawal of consent see also US laws in Maryland and California among other states:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602921.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20030115.html
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You don't know what you're cutting and pasting. Please don't lecture us on what the statute means is if you can't even find the applicable law.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Applicable Swedish law:
Section 1
A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.
This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state.
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/04/74/55/ef2d4c50.pdf
metalbot
(1,058 posts)So, if I have sex with a girl, on a given night, and she consents the first time, everything afterwards is fair game? If she's totally passed out, then her body is mine to ravage?
Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)assuming you were to be a girl and you consent to sex with somebody on the condition of him using a condom(and there having been an argument of sorts before he agreed to wear one)
then the said man would not be raping you if you wake up the next morning by him having entered you without a condom while you were sleeping even tho he knew you did not consent to sex without a condom the night before?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Not wearing a condom during intercourse may be considered a form of reckless endangerment if the partner knows he is HIV+. But, once consent to intercourse is given, with or without a condemn, the act of intercourse and and any subsequent intercourse on the same occasion isn't rape.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)if one was in the evening, and the other was the next morning after a nights sleep, there is a time gap involved there.
And i just can't see how its consensual if somebody agrees to sex with the condition of the male wearing a condom then being awoken hours later by being penetrated by him without a condom. The consent was sex with condom, that does not grant the male liberty to do whatever he wants afterward to somebody who can't consent due to sleeping at the time
leveymg
(36,418 posts)As long as the two remain together in intimate contact -- unclothed, in bed, having had intercourse on the same occasion -- the consent clearly remains. The fact that one partner does not use a condom is not rape. It can be reckless endangerment under certain circumstances, but that does not appear to apply in this instance.
What Assange did on that instance was not ethical and its potentially criminal if he's HIV+, but it isn't rape because the sex on that occasion was consensual. That consent doesn't extend indefinitely, obviously, but a reasonable person would conclude that if you go to bed with someone, have intercourse, that intercourse on the same occasion was not rape unless there was an element of violence or coercion involved - which there wasn't. The interlude of sleep doesn't withdraw consent.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)he did not get consent for sex without one, and there is no way for her to grant such consent when asleep
according to Swedish, UK and US law(in most states) that act is defined as rape since a sleeping person can't consent.
the main difference between us i guess is that i just can't agree that if a woman agrees to sex with a condom, that means the man is free to fuck her later in the night without one(especially since they had an argument on the topic of him having to wear one).
I think its quite obvious that she would not consent to having sex without a condom later in the night/next morning when having had an argument about him having to wear one hours before.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and I'm shocked you think otherwise.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It has to do with the elements of the criminal law, not my opinion of what he did, which IMHO is reprehensible but not criminal.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)that consent is something that is given until you remove yourself from someone's bed, and that if you consent once continued consent is implied, even when asleep, until you leave. That is not the defintion of consent. You have to consent every time you have sex for it to not be rape. This idea of "she hadn't withdrawn consent by falling asleep" is frankly frightening.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If the legal definition of rape were extended so that it covers all acts of sex where there was no expressed consent given for each and every intimate act in the course of consensual sex then we would all be in jail.
The boundaries of the Rape definition cannot be so broad that it captures consensual acts. The circumstances of the act are extremely important to determining the legal element of lack of consent. The acts of two unclothed adults in bed who have already consummated consenting intercourse are presumed to be consenting. More generally, the burden in any criminal prosecution is on the accuser - in this case, there isn't even the allegation of forcible rape or the use or threat of force or violence.
Looked at as a purely legal matter where criminal intent has to be proven, a rape charge is not a sound charge to prosecute this case.
There may be a good case for civil breach of promise, but that is for the individual to pursue.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)What world do you live in? No, most people do not have sex with people who haven't consented.
randome
(34,845 posts)And I think your parsing of what constitutes rape is absurd.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)is considered rape in quite a few countries, Sweden, UK and US being 3 of em
giving consent for one thing does not give automatic consent at a later time, especially not under different circumstances then the original consent, a woman shouldn't have to go "ok, we've had sex, i now withdraw my consent for you to have sex with me later"
Consent is required each time (that even goes for married people as there is such a thing as spousal rape)
reorg
(3,317 posts)which was obviously present in this case.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)if somebody is arguing/demanding that you wear a condom if you want to have sex with her?
reorg
(3,317 posts)Rape paragraphs refer to activities guided by sexual desire and resulting in more or less specified body contact. They do not mention condoms and don't make requirements with regard to health protection.
Neither is a sexual encounter seen as a civil contract. There is no requirement nor the right to insist on a list of "conditions" which have to be met so as not to invalidate consent. If a consensual encounter develops into something one party does not want, they can communicate and resolve the issue or stop with the encounter. Sometimes, the people involved are not acting completely rational, sometimes they don't exactly know what they are doing, so there must be some leeway in all directions. It is, after all, still a spontaneous thing.
You make it out as if all sexual encounters equal an act of prostitution. There you agree on a particular act, pay for it, and when you want something else, the conditions have to be renegotiated before the exchange. You may find this appropriate, I find it demeaning. To each his own, I guess, but rape paragraphs don't define sex as an exchange of goods.
Regardless, the woman in question did not stop once she noticed the lack of a condom. She actually never complained that sex was initiated, her only concern was the possible transmission of STD. So her consent can be seen as a given, only the lack of "protection" gave her a headache. That is sad, but to bring accusations of rape into this is preposterous.
Under normal circumstances nobody would do this. As evidenced by the fact that nobody can show a similar case that has led to rape charges being brought, let alone a conviction, anywhere in the world.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)per se without the element of reckless endangerment.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying this doesn't amount to the criminal offense of rape because the overall sexual encounter was consensual.
reorg
(3,317 posts)of her arguing/demanding.
Otherwise I will go with what the police transcript says.
I already commented extensively on your use of the little qualifier "unprotected". Irrelevant as to the question of sexual intercourse, which was more than wanted as evidenced by her own behavior and words over and over again.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)As I've said, sleeping with someone after a sex act doesn't withdraw consent.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)as i personally would never in my wildest dreams think that i had consent to fuck somebody unprotected if she told me i had to wear protection if i wanted to have sex with her.
It makes no sense at all to believe otherwise.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I agree the act is ethically reprehensible, assuming the allegation is true and has not been mis-characterized by the State's Attorney (which it appears to have been).
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)Applicable Swedish law:
Chapter 6
Section 1
A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.
This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state.
**
I would say the legal definition clearly puts it within the 'rape' category (which seems supported by the Swedish court(since he is wanted by them) as well as the British courts(ruing in Sweden's favor each time Assange appealed their decision higher and higher in regards to the extradition request))
leveymg
(36,418 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)not unconscious. And the next day she organized a party for Assange and they were on most friendly terms. Given all that, the idea of 'rape' proves only malicious intentions towards Assange.
you are confusing the two different women.
Sofia Wilén's tweet was recorded and go into evidence, so that will hopefully discourage the accusers to further claim it was comparable to being fast asleep in the middle of the night, but probably not the prosecution.
She then tried to contact Assange but didn't reach him, IOW, she never planned to discontinue the dalliance and was, on the contrary, surprised to learn that she was not the only one.
The woman who organized the party AFTER she had sex with Assang is Anna Ardin. If you read her police statement and then learn that she continued to support and help Assange and even organized parties, happily tweeting how great this all was, you really have to wonder about her state of mind. Unless she acts like a shameless lier in this interview.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Has there been any evidence presented that confirms the allegations so far? All I see is 'she said'. 'She' also was so disturbed when she saw the right wing tabloid Expressen the following day claiming rape, that she refused to speak to the police again.
Please show us something other than 'she said' that should cause the certainty I am seeing from the anti-Wikileaks people, that the allegations are true??
Why should we believe one person but not the other with no evidence to prove either is telling the truth. This same woman stated there was 'no rape, we were not threatened by him, we were not in danger'. Her brother confirms she was extremely upset of the publication of rape charges.
So when did these allegations finally surface? Months later AFTER the insertion into the case of a politically motivated, not quite sane when it comes to sex and women, (he believes they do not know when they have been raped and the state has the right to come in and take care of them. Paternalism at its worst) attorney. Only THEN did we finally sees these allegations, which have nothing in the way of evidence to back them up. And a denial from Assange which is conveniently ignored.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)and of course he denies them, that would usually be done by anybody guilty or innocent.
If he is innocent tho he should have returned to Sweden 2 years ago voluntarily rather then spend the time appealing the extradition request, deal with the second interview and then awaited the decision that it would not go to court.(a rape charge tho in my eyes is serious enough to require/demand a proper investigation)
And your 'no rape, we were not threatened by him, we were not in danger' statement, is that from the tabloid interview of one of the ladies? if so you are twisting what was actually written
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Here is a perfect example of someone who, as you admit, knows nothing about the case:
Assange was in Sweden two years ago and remained their for weeks, voluntarily, past the time he was supposed to leave. During that time he was interviewed by the police and his Swedish attorney, familiar I would think, with Swedish Law, repeatedly asked the Prosecutor to interview his client. The prosecutor refused and told him he was free to leave, which he finally did after nearly five weeks.
Since then he was always been available to the Prosecutor for an interview, but she has consistently refused, making many different excuses all of which have been debunked.
The real question people are asking is 'why does the Swedish Prosecutor NOT want to speak to Assange'?
In fact in a radio interview of a spokesperson for the Prosecutor yesterday, she was asked what prevented her from speaking to Assange over the past two years, both in Sweden and either in their embassy in London or at a London police station, since this has been done before.
The spokesperson admitted there was no legal reason for this and was 'the personal decision of the prosecutor'. When pressed as to why the prosecutor continues to refuse to speak to him, she said 'I don't know'. Neither do we and we would certainly like to know.
More and more people are asking this question and it is becoming a huge issue, not as intended for Assange, but for the Swedish prosecution, this refusal of the both when he was in Sweden and since then, to get this case moving into court by doing her job.
And the longer it goes on, the more people believe it is because she has no case and never did, that the first prosecutor who having seen the 'evidence' dismissed it, was correct.
Unlike you I have seen the evidence, at least the transcripts of police interviews with all the witnesses, the list of physical evidence and I don't really blame the Prosecutor for not wanting to put this case before a judge.
There is so much exculpatory evidence, so many changes of testimony as time goes on, that if I were her, I would not want to be in a position of having to put some of these people under oath where they will be cross-examined by the Defense.
Better to drag it out and keep him in Limbo where his work is restricted, and try destroy his reputation as was the plan outlined in the leaked CIA memo 'get him involved in a sex scandal'. However the longer it goes on, the less credibility they have and the more people believe he is being persecuted. Iow, it's not working. Now most of the world suspects he is simply being railroaded.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)had to admit in British court that he had been mistaken and Nye had arranged for an interview with Assange on the 28th(date of the interview), the day they arranged it was the 22nd i believe.
And when i said i didn't know exactly what evidence exists, i was referring to what evidence the ladies lawyers have since i doubt all evidence has been released
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Do you really think this? Wow!
I have been sharing the same bed with my husband for 15 years, not just one night, and I promise you when I consent to sex, it is ONE TIME, and he has to ask me if I want another go to have access to me again. And he knows it and would never think otherwise! I can't believe there is any confusion about this!
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I'm curious. If I offer a guy a blowjob, wait for them to fall asleep then usher in handcuffs, a broomstick and a trained donkey- consensual? Or not?
I'm leaning "not". You?
The first law I looked up- California- certainly does have provision for "unconscious or asleep".
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261
so it exists in at least one spot.
FWIW I think the charges are bogus too, but trying to alter the definition of rape to fit one unique case isn't helping anyone. Judge the Assange case on its own individual merits, or lack of them, please.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)If you consent to have sex once, you only consent to have sex that one time. You don't have to "withdraw consent." Consent has to be given for every sexual act.
tama
(9,137 posts)they came up when she found out that Assange had slept also with other woman and they started talking. And she - a christian socialist - has written a blog about getting back at a cheating boyfriend through cocked up rape charges.
pnwmom
(110,197 posts)her while she was sleeping AND without wearing a condom. The night before, they had consensual sex but only after they argued about him wearing a condom and he broke down and wore one.
If a woman gives consent for sex but only with a condom, and the man later penetrates her anyway, without one, then that would be rape. In the case of Miss W, she says she woke up to find him inside her, and without a condom, even though he knew (from their argument the previous night) that she required one. That non-consensual penetration of a sleeping woman would constitute rape in Sweden or the U.S.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Nothing to do with Wikileaks or his extradition to the US.
Sorry, I have no wish to debate the Swedish rape laws.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Sleeping persons cannot consent.
See here for relevant US law (note "asleep" and "unconscious"
:
[A] Common law – Generally speaking, sexual intercourse by a male with a female not his wife, constitutes rape if it is committed:
1.) forcibly
2.) by means of deception;
3.) while the female is asleep or unconscious; or
4.) under circumstances in which the female is not competent to give consent (e.g., she is drugged, mentally disabled, or underage).
(snip)
[C] Modern Statutory Law – Many states now extend the law to specified forms of non-forcible, but nonconsensual, sexual intercourse, e.g., sexual intercourse by a male with an unconscious or drugged female. Increasingly, rape is now defined in gender-neutral terms regarding both the perpetrator and the victim. In the most reformed statutes, the offense has been broadened to include all forms of sexual penetration; the name of the crime has been changed (e.g., "criminal sexual conduct" or "sexual assault"
and the offense is divided into degrees.
[D] Model Penal Code – A male is guilty of rape if, acting purposely, knowingly, or recklessly regarding each of the material elements of the offense, he has sexual intercourse with a female under any of the following circumstances:
1.) the female is less than 10 years of age;
2.) the female is unconscious;
3.) he compels the female to submit by force or by threatening her or another person with imminent death, grievous bodily harm, extreme pain or kidnapping; or
4.) he administers or employs drugs or intoxicants in a manner that substantially impairs the female’s ability to appraise or control her conduct. {MPC § 213.1(1){
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim25.htm
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The problem is how one defines "coercion" under Swedish rape law. Coercion implies compulsion as well as a lack of explicit consent.
The fact that the sex was consensual in all of the events is not disputed. One of the complainants, AA (Expressen, 21 August 2011), stated that both she and SW had consensual sex with Assange.
Complainant AA’s statements to the tabloid Aftonbladet (21 August 2010) also deny criminal intent on Assange’s side or threat/use of force. According to complainant AA:
"It is completely false that we are afraid of Assange and therefore didn’t want to file a complaint. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him." - Complainant AA
Swedish rape laws
"Sweden’s definition of legal rape includes the idea of ’unlawful coercion’, which involves exerting emotional pressure on someone to have sex. In other words, talking someone into bed. A man in Assange’s position of wealth and power would be particularly vulnerable to this form of ’rape’, which carries a possible four-year sentence, because it could be argued that his status allowed him to exert an inordinate level of influence.
Needless to say, I disagree with the notion that falling for a "good line" or being gullible is the same thing as being raped. Indeed, as a woman who has been raped, I am deeply offended by the suggestion that the two scenarios are in any way equivalent." Sweden’s law trivializes the brutal crime of rape and leaves nonviolent men open to unjust imprisonment." http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html
And, by the way, the prohibition against sex with a sleeping woman does not apply once consent has been given. Assange and the woman had consensual sex. Consent was given. Therefore, there was no rape under any law.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Consent on one occasion is not consent on all occasions. Penetration of a sleeping partner is rape, under the law, in Sweden, in the UK, in most US states. Regardless of prior consent.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You're conflating two different concepts. The (US) law concerning unconscious rape victim you're pointing to applies only if consent has not been given. It does not mean that once one's consensual adult partner falls asleep after having consensual sex it's rape to have sex with that person. You're dissembling -- making shit up.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)(a) Rape of a person who is the spouse of the perpetrator is
an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful
bodily injury on the person or another.
(2) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this
condition was known, or reasonably should have been known, by the
accused.
(3) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the
act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph,
"unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting
because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.,
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/262.html
Unless you want to argue that a spouse is not a "consensual adult partner"? The fact that you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about doesn't mean I'm making things up, sorry.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The CA statute you have cut and pasted does not mean that consent is automatically withdrawn. "Unconscious of the act" does not imply that. It's not illegal under that Act to have sex with an adult who, once (s)he has consented, has subsequently fallen asleep.
It's a CA law, and doesn't apply, anyway.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)You can't consent to sex while asleep. Regardless of whether there was prior consent. The judgement of the UK court granting extradition:
leveymg
(36,418 posts)metalbot
(1,058 posts)It's related to spousal rape, where clearly there is some level of consent for sexual activities. Are you arguing, basically, that if the spouses had sex earlier in the evening, that rape is not possible later in the evening if it is perpetrated by one spouse on a sleeping partner? But that according to the same statute, that if they had sex yesterday, then having sex with a sleeping partner today would be rape?
That makes no sense.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)However, two people go to bed together and have consensual sex. The consent is not withdrawn if one falls asleep and the partner has sex again on the same occasion. That is NOT rape.
tama
(9,137 posts)and told him it will be empty. But against her earlier announcement she came home. Who seduced whom?
pnwmom
(110,197 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's a screw job, but not rape.
pnwmom
(110,197 posts)She only consented to sex on condition that he use a condom. He argued with her that night, but eventually used one.
The fact that she consented that night to having sex with a condom did NOT give him a free pass to do anything he wanted to her the next morning.
But the next morning she woke up with him on top of her and already inside her. And he wasn't wearing the condom he knew she insisted on. If this happened as she describes, then it is clearly rape.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Think of all the cases of rape in which the charges are quite clear and the evidence pretty strong and there is still no conviction. Rape is very hard to prove in some cases. Sometimes the evidence is clear. That is part of the problem here.
pnwmom
(110,197 posts)but rape is very hard to prove.
What if there turned out to be more accusers than these two women? Would that strengthen the case against him?
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)since these two conspired with each other before going to the police, which does taint their stories, and there's been quite a bit of evidence that their stories were changed to suit the charges.
ETA what I meant was "it would have helped the case if there'd been a third uninvolved party". If the charges ARE true, I've no desire to see another woman get raped. Just for clarity.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's not ethical behavior, but it's not rape. She already consented to have sexual intercourse, and had sex with him in the same bed on the same occasion. His offense is not to wear a condum. I'm not sure what that is -- some kind of reckless endangerment, if he were HIV+ (which I don't think he is) -- but it isn't rape. If this weren't Assange, it would not be treated as rape.
pnwmom
(110,197 posts)and the only sex they had previously had was with the condom, as she required.
Her consent was CONDITIONAL and he did not meet the condition:using a condom. Therefore, if it occurred at all, it was rape.
If this were anyone but Assange, with his legion of besotted fans, the situation she described would clearly be understood as rape.
metalbot
(1,058 posts)Let's take this a step further. Let's assume a woman has consented to have sex with me, on a given night, in a given bed. Could I then, after she's fallen asleep, have anal sex with her without her consent? What if I wore a condom during such anal sex? Given that the law will define anal and vaginal non-consensual sex the same way, I think I'd be free and clear according to your definitions.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)matter, and their system shouldnt matter. its kinda wierd where we have an Australian wanted by Sweden in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK and for some reason people think that US standards should apply.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You would have a hard time convincing a jury of that.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Do you think wives can't be raped? I mean they've had consensual sex with their husbands before too.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)And she was only having sex with him under the condition that he wore a condom. So, not only was he not wearing the condom, he proceeded to initiate sex with her while she was asleep. It doesn't matter if she had sex with him earlier. A woman cannot consent to sex when she's unconscious.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)It isn't rape if she says it isn't. The actions and words of both women after their sexual contact with Assange, indicate that they did not believe they were raped.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)Det är helt fel att vi skulle vara rädda för Assange och därför inte velat anmäla, säger kvinnan, han är inte våldsam och jag känner mig inte hotad av honom.
I båda fallen har det handlar om frivillig sex till en början som i ett senare skede övergått i övergrepp.
Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne. Vi står fullt ut för uppgifterna, säger kvinnan till Aftonbladet.
*
Its totally wrong that we would be afraid of Assange and therefore not wanting charges, says the woman, he is not violent and i don't feel endangered by him
In both cases its about voluntary sex initially that later became abuse
the second woman wanted to report rape. i gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her. we stand by the information,says the woman to aftonbladet
**
one woman want him charged with rape, the other woman in the case believes she was a victim of sexual abuse/molestation but not rape
The English translation was done by me.
**
struggle4progress
(125,389 posts)and the court should therefore order the person’s discharge under section 10 Extradition Act ... There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant ... The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape ...
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons
morningfog
(18,115 posts)based on Sweden's desire to question him regarding the allegations?
struggle4progress
(125,389 posts)where corruption is not widespread; moreover, a Swedish court issued the arrest order for Assange; so the most likely interpretation of the warrant is that Swedish authorities believe violations of Swedish law may have occurred.
The UK is bound by the extradition treaties it has signed; the UK courts have upheld the warrant; so the most likely interpretation of the UK's action is that the UK is complying with its international obligations
Ecuador was never involved in this matter; Assange is an Australian citizen, not an Ecuadorian citizen; Ecuador, if it wished to address the UK courts on the matter of the Swedish warrant, could have petitioned to do so, but it did not do that. In the Bush II era, there seems to have been some US effort to destabilize Ecuador, which the Ecuadorians naturally resent. Correa refused to renew permission for a US military base in the country and (on the basis of a Wikileaks cable) expelled a US ambassador. Likely interpretations of Ecuador's behavior are that Correa thinks he is schmecking the US in the schnozz by sheltering Assange, or that Correa's political base believes he is schmecking the US in the schnozz by sheltering Assange
niyad
(129,736 posts)pnwmom
(110,197 posts)disagrees with you. He says this is a "normal police investigation."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
The co-ordinator of the WikiLeaks group in Stockholm, who is a close colleague of Assange and who also knows both women, told the Guardian: "This is a normal police investigation. Let the police find out what actually happened. Of course, the enemies of WikiLeaks may try to use this, but it begins with the two women and Julian. It is not the CIA sending a woman in a short skirt."
treestar
(82,383 posts)Every excuse in the book that sounds like a loony conspiracy theory. The big bad US, which has no jurisdiction, will actually spirit Julian away and now Karl Rove is in on the act!
pnwmom
(110,197 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)Its totally wrong that we would be afraid of Assange and therefore not wanting charges, says the woman, he is not violent and i don't feel endangered by him
In both cases its about voluntary sex initially that later became abuse
the second woman wanted to report rape. i gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her. we stand by the information,says the woman to aftonbladet
**
its one charge of rape i believe, the second one believes she was the victim of sexual abuse/molestation but not rape
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It's all about Assange's threat to expose BoA. That's when the shit hit the fan.
Wikileaks was launched in 2006. Little happened to the organization or Assange for the next 4 years, despite releasing vast volumes (2 million or more) of embarrassing diplomatic traffic.
Then in early 2010 Assange revealed that Wikileaks had a bank executive's hard drive, later confirmed to be from BoA.
And my, how things changed...
Aug 2010: Arrest warrant for Assange issued in Sweden , but dropped a day later, then reinstated a week and a half later.
Oct 2010: Daniel Domscheit-Berg defects and subsequently deletes the BoA files he stole from the Wikileaks server.
Dec 2010: Second Swedish arrest warrant issued for Assange;
Dec 2010: Wikileaks web site is shut down, and its financial conduits are closed.
Feb 2011: Anonymous hacked HBGary's servers. The resulting email dump revealed BoA's hiring of HBGary to being down Wikileaks.
And we all know what's happened since then.
All this fuss and drama about war crimes and rape, when all along it was about the money.
That's the way the system works - throw up a smokescreen and have a bunch of willing dupes (paid disinformants? useful idiots? naive? single-issue people who are invested in rape or security issues? Probably a combination of all of them) ready to blow the smoke around, to obscure the actual movement of the troops.
It's not about rape.
It's not about war crimes.
It's not about diplomatic embarrassment.
It's about money.
It's always about money.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)and I think it's exceptionally simple-minded to say "sides with government".
First: it's possible to support the work Wikileaks has done while finding Assange personally unpleasant and distasteful, and while thinking that Assange has allowed his ego and personal troubles to get in the way of whatever "mission" Wikileaks happens to have.
Second: Assange is accused of serious sexual offences, at least one of which is rape. I personally find the accuser's stories to be credible and believable. I think that Assange should answer the charges. I think that his trying to make this extradition battle about something other than his not wanting to face a rape trial in Sweden is yet another sign of his ego.
Third: I would strenuously oppose any effort by the US government to extradite Assange (an Australian citizen) to the US to face trial on espionage charges related to disclosure of classified materials by Wikileaks (whose servers were hosted in Sweden). I find the conflation of the criminal charges against Assange with some hypothetical political persecution to be absurd.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)stories from the "accuser" (or accusers) can be found?
Or do you find second-hand and third-hand stories from others to be credible and believable?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The accusation is that one of the women had consensual sex with Assange with the stipulation that a condom be used. She says she slept, woke, and found him penetrating her without a condom. Several of her friends also questioned said she'd shared this version of events with them immediately after. I find this to be credible because it sounds believable (and if you're going to frame someone for rape...why do it in such a messy way? Why have her admit consensual intercourse?).
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)instances but only to "summaries by the interviewing officer of what was said."
In three instances, the link leads to interviews with "Julian Assange, Johannes Wahlström and Donald Boström."
You said, "She says she slept, woke, and found ..."
No. The interview officer says she said ...
You also say, "I've read the police interviews."
No you haven't. At best, you've read "summaries by the interviewing officer of what was said" with respect to nine individuals and three interviews with "Julian Assange, Johannes Wahlström and Donald Boström."
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I trust that the Swedish police and prosecuting authority aren't going to be just making things up when those things may later be entered as evidence in court. Whether it's a verbatim transcript or a summary is irrelevant.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)whether second-hand accounts are accurate and complete.
Any attorney in the United States who would allow such second-hand statements to "be entered as evidence in court" without objection would be displaying incompetence and engaging in malpractice.
Under the law of this country which is applicable to those governmental officials who are trying to ultimately get him extridicted to the United States, your beliefs are not controlling. You don't have the authority to just make up the rules as you go along. Nor do you have the authority with those who think like you do to just make up the rules.
You trust the Swedish police? You trust the prosecuting authority? Excuse me, but if the law is going to be followed, so what?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't believe they will be found to differ materially.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)At best, a précis is a summary of a person's interpretation of an interview.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)At post #9, you wrote, "I personally find the accuser's stories to be credible and believable."
In response, at #36, I wrote, "If you "find the accuser's stories to be credible and believable," do you have a link to first-hand stories from the "accuser" (or accusers) can be found?"
It is now obvious that you didn't "find the accuser's stories to be credible and believable," personally or otherwise, but that you found second-hand and/or third-hand stories to be credible and believable.
You cannot post a link to a credible, non-tabloid-type source, which contains first-hand stories from an "accuser" or "accusers."
To merely assert that second-hand stories are, in your view credible and believable, doesn't make them so. Nor does it make such second-hand interpretations "evidence."
frylock
(34,825 posts)it's this authoritarian mindset, more than age or race, that determines whther you support assange or his accusers. i trust the police and prosecuting authority.
trust any authority. Becoming and being an authority makes you sick in head. Fact confirmed by extensive psychological studies.
tama
(9,137 posts)It's been said elsewhere that at least one of the victims stopped talking and refused to sign the initial police report when she understood it was turning into rape case instead of request to get Assange tested for STD. Also in regards to police credibility in this case it cannot be forgotten that they leaked everything about the case immediately to yellow press and that the original prosecutor very unlawfully confirmed Assange's name to media.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)its my written translation of a Swedish article by one of the women
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)be found?
At best, it leads to a post to a second-hand account which you now say is your "written translation of a Swedish article by one of the women."
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)and what the poster translated: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not a "tabloid." It is a newspaper.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)the National Enquirer and other American tabloids and is not a newspaper like the New York Times or even whatever local newspaper that you have.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You should spend a little more time in Europe--a "garish layout" does not a tabloid make, and America is not the only country in the world with a strong newspaper culture. Pssst--we didn't invent the things, you know.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Knock yourself out making excuses, now!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Whether your view "it is a left wing tabloid" has any merit is something of which I cannot confirm.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not sure what your grand objection to "tabloids" are...
Feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest?
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)you paid by post? If I didn't know well enough, I'd say you were a neo-con you also apologizes for right wing actions by the Israeli government.... how speshulll and brainwashed you are.
randome
(34,845 posts)...it is the Assange fanbois who hurl the insults and invective. Not the other way around.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)I would like him to stand trial
HOWEVER
I am very skeptical of how concerned the Swedish, US, and other governments are about the rape charges. I've never known people accused of rape to be hunted down anywhere near like this. Particularly non-stranger rape. I wish this is how people accused of rape were chased, but it isn't in this world in 2012. It's so highly politicized in this case.
I wish he could get a fair trial, but I think that's unlikely too.
I am not convinced he is innocent of rape, nor am I convinced he's guilty. I have no idea and would have to sit on a jury and see evidence to decide that.
I'm afraid he'd just sit in Gitmo and get waterboarded or something.
randome
(34,845 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Sadly.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Jumping John
(930 posts)Yea if the way B Manning is being treated then I shudder to think how Assange would be treated.
Manning's treatment w/o charges and the non-caring attitude by Obama tells me that justice is not a given for the little guy in this country. And the fact that Manning was charged with aiding the enemy tells me that his persecution for telling the truth is a farce.
edit
I am sure he could never rape a woman, just from seeing him.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)redqueen
(115,186 posts)I don't know about his guilt or innocence as far as whatever went on with his sex partners. There seems to be a variety of versions of each story to choose from.
What I do know is he is not being treated fairly. If it was routine to make international incidents out of such rape allegations I might think differently.
As it is, he is so obviously being singled out for unfair treatment.
randome
(34,845 posts)I wonder how many arrest warrants for possible rape are currently in the world. How many alleged sexual offenders flee the country of where their alleged offense took place?
Unless you have statistics to back up your contention that this does not occur frequently or Assange is treated differently, I don't see how you can say that.
The only reason we hear about it in the case of Assange is because he has celebrity status and has helped foster international incidents.
IMO.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)So far, no threats to invade another country to get him.
Here's another from the UK: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/06/28/uk-wont-extradite-man-accused-of-rape-to-minn/
and their diplomatic status seems to be intact and unthreatened.
Have you researched the number of times an embassy has been threatened with invasion to get a rape suspect? My research says it's holding at 1.
avebury
(11,186 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Here is how I see it:
Wikileaks is cool.
Assange is a narcissist.
The Swedish prosecution made some errors.
The U.K. compounded matters by applying pressure to Ecuador.
Ecuador has a horrible record on freedom of speech, etc.
America was wrong to apply economic pressure on Wikileaks.
Australia does not care to defend Assange.
Interpol issued a valid arrest warrant.
No one is without blame in this matter.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)how is it 'blatantly' obvious?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...with that you would cause a firestorm of insane justifications and jumping around.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's a shame that we turn on one another when something more complicated than 'Republicans are evil!' is brought to the fore.
tama
(9,137 posts)I'm glad you show ability to at least try see both sides of this issue, but labeling the situation in Ecuador "horrible" without good evidence sounds just ignorant and/or gullible and I hope you are ready to keep your mind open on that issue also.
Ben_Caxton
(28 posts)He isn't a whistleblower. He's a distributor of stolen goods.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I hope you enjoy your stay!
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Enjoy your stay
Ben_Caxton
(28 posts)... and that's fine with me.
Closest book at hand however when I chose a screen name.
Aquafraternally yours,
BC
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)People always think I'm named for the movie.
randome
(34,845 posts)No snark included!
TDale313
(7,822 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Some folks here are much older than I guessed.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I want the truth and common sense to prevail. Other than that.
1940, female, sides with truth and justice.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Also, I don't believe there is a neat division of "sides with Assange" or "sides with government".
To some extent, what Assange is doing is fine. I am uneasy with his selective reveals, promises of releases which do not occur, and general showmanship. For reasons going far back beyond the diplomatic cable thing, he has struck me as someone who has some personality issues. The Bank of America drive material was never published, and the release of cables has been highly selective. To exercise selection is to exercise editorial control to some degree, and to paint a partial picture.
I'm uneasy with the lionization of him, as I do not trust him any more than I trust government.
pnwmom
(110,197 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)for some of your misgivings. The material about banks (and lots of other stuff) was stolen from Wikileaks and then destroyed. To my best knowledge the release of cables has been slow from part of Wikileaks because of arduous redaction of the vast amount of material, which is how responsible journalism is done (Assange also asked US to help with the redaction work to protect individuals from potential danger, but was refused), but the key to the whole torrent datafile was published by Guardian journalists.
Wikileaks worked together with traditional mainstream media to get more publicity to cables, but sadly traditional media has behaved not as well as expected.
If you think that Wikileaks should not have done basic editorial work to protect individuals from harm to the best of their ability, and just dumped the whole thing as is, then we disagree.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)When a man shows me one card from a deck, I can only trust him to say there are 51 other different cards in that deck.
You have several assumptions about what constitutes the "editorial" work, and nothing but faith to go on.
When Assange goes on a personal vendetta, there are no holds barred. Some years ago, an internet domain name registrar misinterpreted and mishandled a court order. In response, Assange has published detailed personal dossiers on employees who had no connection to that action, including information about their friends, associates, and even a band one of the employees worked with as a hobby.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WIKILEAKS.INFO_censored_by_eNom_and_Demand_Media
That is the type of meanspirited and vindictive kind of person who is Julian Assange. You give him your trust without basis. I do not trust him for a reason.
tama
(9,137 posts)about a case against a company that tried to censor a Wikileaks domain, apparently as part of the (CIA taskforce orchestrated) wide - and unlawful - denial of access campaign against Wikileaks that was and is still going on.
Do you have some personal relation to that case? Or why so bitter?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)No, it is a personal attack which involved cyberstalking of individuals who had nothing to do with the handling of the order that was sent to the registrar.
Yes, I am a personal colleague of one of the people whose personal information was published, and who was personally harassed by Wikileaks readers.
It's not at all about a "case against a company that tried to censor a Wikileaks domain". Enom wasn't part of the case. They are simply a service provider which received a court order. And, no, that page is not "fully documented" since it doesn't even get down to the issue of the order which was issued to Enom.
Instead, Assange publishes pictures of people who had nothing to do with it, along with assorted personal details, and the headline "GUILTY" on top of it.
Do you think it is funny when the anti-abortion people do that sort of thing?
You explain to me why it is necessary, or acceptable, to publish the myspace page of a band managed part time by an Enom employee, having absolutely nothing to do with the situation, so that people harass them about a situation they knew nothing about. Justify that to me.
tama
(9,137 posts)but to answer to your question: I don't agree that it was necessary to to publish the myspace page of a band managed part time by an Enom employee in this dossier. There are many kinds of service providers, those that protect their customers, their privacy and freedom of expression also from political harassment and persecution, and those that bend over without questions when gov agencies tell them to, and this dossier accuses Enom of belonging to the latter category.
As for Assange, I don't know how much of this editorial is his personal work, if any.
Generally I have been supportive of Anonymous tactics of of protection of general public by public exposure of wrong doers, which have for example taken violent cops of the street at least temporarily. The lines are not easy to draw and I sympathize with you and your friends for any personal harassment.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)As with the "editing" of the diplomatic cables, and the complete backtrack on the alleged BoA materials, you are trusting the "editor" to give you a complete picture. Recapitulating the entire history of the court order that was served on Enom would take a bit longer than I have time for here, but Assange's characterization is false and personally attacks people who had nothing to do with it. That tells me all I need to know about the kind of person he is, and whether he is trustworthy.
And, again, insofar as the "editing" goes. You are told it is being done "responsibly". All you have done is to trade government secrecy for Assange's secrecy. He has information, and has decided for your own good to withhold it from you. Isn't that really the same thing?
And you can shove your faux "sympathy" for people who had nothing to do with the issue, didn't even work for the company, and had to put up with the bullshit he inflicted on them. Wait until you get caught in the crossfire of a ranting egomaniacal asshole sometime, and it becomes a hobby of people with too much time on their hands to harass you.
MgtPA
(1,022 posts)
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)Just because he has done something very important does not mean that he is perfect or above reproach.
It's just how I feel. That being said I'm not particularly passionate about what happens to this particular case one way or another. He started something that won't be stopped - with him or without him - and that's far more important in my opinion.
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)And there you have the answer to your question - it's not that simple.
As far as WikiLeaks is concerned, I agree that in the basic idea of transparency in government. However, there are some things that are secret for a good reason and should remain secret. Much of what WikiLeaks has done is very good. Some of it is questionable. Some of it has put innocent people in harm's way, which is absolutely wrong.
As for Julian Assange personally, everything I have read about him has led me to believe that he is an egotistical asshole rapist. Yes, a rapist, despite what some say.
WikiLeaks is a lot more than Assange, although he tends to take all the credit.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)
cr8tvlde
(1,185 posts)I like this better than a poll. I high-schooled and colleged at Tricky Dick's alma mater. It was a private, but liberal college. Much handwringing and even a hanging in effigy. That being said, enough with all the underhanded, not-on-the-record crap. And, from "hell, no we won't go" with the wars of convenience or "just because we can" ... I lost a couple of friends back then who had great lives ahead of them.
Make them account for and be held accountable for every, stinking detail...and that means Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, too.
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)lob1
(3,820 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)or people are going to wonder how I have kids the age I have.
lob1
(3,820 posts)But just remember, I'm only 5 myself. (I'm also lying) LOL.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I regret that this is going on right now and it is not in the spirit of the FOIA. But this is not the USA I grew up in, either. It is more RW now. I am a member of the generation who benefited from the passage of the FOIA in the USA:
In the United States the Freedom of Information Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966 and went into effect the following year. Ralph Nader has been credited with the impetus for creating this act, among others.[68] The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments were signed by President Bill Clinton on October 2, 1996.
The Act applies only to federal agencies. However, all of the states, as well as the District of Columbia and some territories, have enacted similar statutes to require disclosures by agencies of the state and of local governments, though some are significantly broader than others. Some state and local government agencies attempt to get around state open records laws by claiming copyright for their works and then demanding high fees to license the public information.[69]:441–42 The ruling in Santa Clara v. CFAC will likely curtail the abuse of copyright to avoid public disclosure in California, but agencies in other states like Texas and New York continue to hide behind copyright.[citation needed] Some states expand government transparency through open meeting laws, which require government meetings to be announced in advance and held publicly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation#United_States
I have not changed my mind one bit, do not hate those witha different view of President Obama, who I fully support. I believe, in contrast to those that have taken the 'all government is evil, it's all a conspiracy' belief filter, his actions will change as America changes. He is not acting for himself in this matter, the machinery of the system is in place and must be changed by us, as he is not a dictator. In life, we all have roles to play, some of them are not popular and do not please all of us.
I met Daniel Ellsberg at my university when he came to talk to us. I bought a paper back copy of his book, The Pentagon Papers which he signed. He was a lightning rod for many with reasons to not support the Vietnam War. He released the Pentagon Papers and the firestorm around that was bigger than this one, but I understand those who didn't live in those days don't know what it was like then. Read below if you're interested the part of this I italicized and the links below.
Ellsberg now supports Wikileaks, Assange and Manning. I supported Gravel in the last election for POTUS since I was involved in mobillizations to end the war in those days and knew what he did to make that release. I can't forget watching him weep as he read the Pentagon Papers into the public record so it could not be destroyed as actions to stop it being disclosed were extreme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
Daniel Ellsberg knew the leaders of the task force well. He had worked as an aide to McNaughton from 1964 to 1965, had worked on the study for several months in 1967, and in 1969 Gelb and Halperin approved his access to the work at RAND.[3] Now opposing the war, Ellsberg and his friend Anthony Russo[4] photocopied the study in October 1969 intending to disclose it. He approached Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Senators William Fulbright and George McGovern, and others, but none were interested.[3]
In February 1971 Ellsberg discussed the study with New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. The Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The name "Pentagon Papers" for the study arose during the resulting media publicity.[3][5] Street protests, political controversy and lawsuits followed.
To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel (then Democrat, Alaska) entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers#Leak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#The_Pentagon_Papers
While I don't know the reasons for the emotions, that is my story. I respect the opinion of Ellsberg, as a fellow sojourner, but not a god, which some people seem to be ready to put someone or the other in that place.
The issue of good governance is essential in some aspects of our lives. I find some opinions rabid or heavy handed, just I am sure some find mine tedious and oboxnious at times, if not all the time. Hurray for Ignore.
Pardon me for this being so long. I was going to the 3rd post but ended up being the fifty-third.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)It's very interesting...hope more can or will take the time to read it.
And your next to last paragraph hit home with me:
"The issue of good governance is essential in some aspects of our lives. I find some opinions rabid or heavy handed, just I am sure some find mine tedious and oboxnious at times, if not all the time."
I believe it's important to speak out in these trying times... If we don't do it...look who will take over...
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Lung Cancer ,wish we had a whistle blower there ,I would have put flowers on his grave.
phylny
(8,792 posts)but do care that if someone is accused of rape, that they face prosecution.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...which as far as I know is the only Government seeking out JA for criminal investigation.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)FREE BRADLEY MANNING!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)(edited to change birth year to grad year, sorry about that)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)so far not seeing much of a split.
but since when is DU not split, and not acrimonious, about anything?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
DU seems pretty united on that..
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)When this subject comes up it inevitably descends into the same deadlock with no one (that posts) changing their mind no matter what new facts have been presented.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)What I meant is that, at the time I posted, the replies in THIS thread seemed to be about 50 for Assange and 3 against. Not much of a split if DU is 94% pro-Assange.
Whereas in a previous issue, the use of food stamps to buy pop, a poll showed DU split about 54-46 (although as with most polls, the vast silent majority either didn't see it, or chose not to vote in it). But there was still lots of acrimony about THAT.
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)
mike_c
(36,905 posts)Another Vietnam/Watergate generation DUer, here. I expect Assange's detractors would have hated Daniel Ellsberg, too.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Autumn
(48,768 posts)
KegCreekDem
(75 posts)
choie
(6,656 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
xchrom
(108,903 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
mattvermont
(646 posts)He might not be the best romantic partner, but I do not believe the charges. Were they to be for real, then he erased all of the good that he has done.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Has it made her job easier or more difficult?
Do you feel that she in any way cheers him on or the purpose he claims or the effect he has?
tama
(9,137 posts)for Hillary to spy UN officials to get dirt on them for distortion. Generally more difficult for US to pursue its imperialist agenda.
Denninmi
(6,581 posts)And what is being done to them is extraordinary.
I hope that whatever Assange has in his encrypted file eventually becomes public no matter the outcome.
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)I agree with his releasing of information but he seems like a very flawed person at the same time. Strange and a bit of a narcissist. And yet, what person isn't flawed? Another thing I will add is that the rape charges seem nearly impossible to prove or disprove. In a court it would a he said/she said type of case, wouldn't it?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Progressives support the people and liberty.
In this case righties support the government/authorities, lefties support Assange/freedom fighter.
Same shit, different day.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)i don't support Assange but i support the women wanting justice.
Under most circumstances that would put me on the left but based on your post I'm a rightist since i don't support Assange.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Or is it left there with you?
Whatever the case I appreciate your insight on this matter.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Conservatives pretty much universally ignore facts, reason, logic, and evidence, and support whatever fits with their existing personal belief system.
For instance, the majority of progressives believe Darwin's theories of evolution and natural selection, and the majority of conservatives believe in creationism as outlined in some religious dogma.
Facts, reason, logic, and evidence all support the POV of the majority of progressives that Julian Assange is being framed.
In line with the overwhelming majority of conservatives, you apparently take the opposite position.
Do the math.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)I've seen a lot of claims, speculation, and lies about the two women from a number of his supporters tho(there have been some things that might rise an eye i admit )
I would argue a lot of the people who support Assange ignore the facts, reason, logic, and evidence that goes counter to their belief of Assange's innocence however
one of the main being the interview that some supporters used to point at as evidence the women didn't want him charged, which when read by me and translated points to them wanting him charged and one of them wanting him charged with rape. Once that was pointed out the paper the interview was in became a right-wing tabloid that was biased against Assange(never mind that it was good enough hours before to use to defend him and unless I'm wrong Assange was planning to write a monthly column with them)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)the most glaring problem would be that Assange's lawyer in Sweden(or one of them) stated that he had gotten permission to leave and as such left on the 27th, yet in British court he had to admit that was wrong and that Nye had contacted him on the 22nd and there had been an agreement for an interview on the 28th.(the said lie is one of the things that undermined Assange's UK extradition hearing)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)tsuki
(11,994 posts)
pscot
(21,044 posts)If you count these up, I'd be interested to know the result.
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)...
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I don't even know who Assanage is or what is alleged to have done.
I am concerning myself with problems here at home right now.
unc70
(6,492 posts)Just being contested by proxies, as usual.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)50/50
Support Assange in respect of his fear of deportation from Sweden
Think he is a sexual predator should face questioning and possible prosecution for his actions in Sweden.
Vidar
(18,335 posts)snot
(11,528 posts)And I suspect his supporters on DU substantially outnumber his detractors.
unc70
(6,492 posts)
Why Syzygy
(18,928 posts)I think the issue is a matter of the US wanting to disappear him. I hope I'm wrong.
The Wingers @ facebook aren't saying either. They think he is CIA.
and btw . I was the youngest person in my graduating class . late summer birth date 
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)bunch of wankers.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)The case against Assange is very murky indeed. But, it isn't a kind of case the US normally pursues, I have to wonder why they would make this case an international incident. I think Sweden if they really cared about this case, and I doubt they do, should grant a non extradition promise. I also think they could if they really cared just question him in Ecuador, but again I don't think they really care. It is disgusting to me that the government has politicized rape allegations. So I am against the US getting involved in this. I am against the way Sweden is handling this.
The women seem to be lost in all this. Where are they? Can the Swedish government even prosecute if they aren't in the country? It seems to me that the women were pressured into saying things they weren't comfortable with because someone had a whiff of blood in the water ie a way to get Assange. I really hope that it wasn't rape, but I don't believe for a second that it was nothing. So, I can't side with Assange either. I can only side with him on the point of not being extradited. When all rape cases cause this much brouhaha, then I would be more inclined to side with the government. But, for the most part rape is under prosecuted.
If the women were more intent on pursuing this, I would side with them.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Granted, when they first went to the police they weren't looking to see him prosecuted, which is understandable in rape cases... there very often is a period of "denial" where you just want to forget about it and wipe it from your mind. There is also the fear of retaliation, your name getting out (which happened in this case, and just look at the results) and fear of being dragged through the mud in court and essentially having to relive it. Just because they aren't saying anything in the media hardly means anything. No attorney worth their salt would want their client to say anything at all. Whether the victim or the accused it's best to keep your mouth shut lest you stick your foot in it. The fact that the women are still represented by counsel and are remaining silent tells me that they are indeed interested in pursuing the case. How interested they are is anyone's guess, there's no way to know, and know way to judge if this interest is weak or strong what that means... weak interest could be fear and wanting to forget about it, and strong interest could be interest in not appearing as a liar. Without getting into a woman's head, there's no way to interpret why their interest is strong or weak and why. Frankly, there is no reason to pursue a case at all without a witness or one that is hostile particularly in such a case that comes down to he said/she said (which most rape cases are).
tama
(9,137 posts)that at least one of the women - who wrote the blog about how to take revenge on cheating boyfriends and fled in Israel - wanted the case in tabloids to publicly humiliate Assange, and Swedish officials have indeed made the whole thing very public from the beginning, quite unlawfully and with impunity. Secrecy in rape charges is for protection of both the accused and accusers.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Espionage Act of 1917:
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, . . . .
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
I personally think that Assange had not intent or reason to believe that the information he published would "be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation."
I think he just thought it was the truth about events that had occurred -- or supposition about events that had occurred. I think he thought of it as truth that had been suppressed. I do not think he had any intent to injure the US or to give advantage to any foreign nation. I think he is rather idealistic, perhaps foolishly so, and that he was publishing all kinds of "classified" or secret information from all kinds of sources because he believes in openness. I don't think he had any intention to hurt anything except excessive secrecy, lies and the unwarranted conceit of leaders that pretend to be things that they are not.
So, I really don't know what crime he is supposed to have committed other than allegedly trying to have sex with a woman who was asleep. And that would be difficult to prove.
calikid
(703 posts)BlueNinja
(25 posts)I support the work WikiLeaks has done, but I'd rather sexual assault allegations not be thrown by the wayside regardless of the fact that they do carry the strong smell of a political witch-hunt. I said in another post that in a perfect world Assange wouldn't have to worry about going to prison for blowing the whistle, and would just answer the allegations that have been brought against him in Sweden.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Assange appears to be a real piece of shit.
It is not a pro/anti Assange or pro/anti government only situation. Although it seems many have difficulty making that distinction. Throughout history many people who have done good things have been very flawed individuals.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)more or less BOGUS.
Take note criminals bush/cheney had no problem outing then active agent Valerie Plame
when it suited them-- in order to "punish" her husband who had the balls to tell
the truth about the so called "yellowcake uranium" from Niger going to madman
Hussein (formerly cheney's friend and biz associate).
yes, obv some things need to be secret-- but crybabies like Feinstein are demanding
everything be top secret.. that is nonsense. this is wayyyy more about
corporate secrets and litigation. this is all academic... look how the U.S. refuses to join
the ICC.
they got nothing on Assange.
lack of transparency in government means we got no democracy.
age 48 Male... with Assange.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Kleptocracy.
And if a person is rich, this is the time to go bonkers.
Run your bank into the ground, and you'll get bailed out, with gold cufflinks from the President to help you deal with your owwie.
And Feinstein needs everything to be Double Top Secret Everything, so it won't come out that she jacks off to pictures of Hitler.
Di Fi has a hard on for Assange because of the HUGE conflict of interest between
herself and the various businesses run by her uber wealthy husband. some of
these businesses are defense-related.
again, this is mostly about corporate/business secrets, not government.
it's disgusting.. about as UNethical as it gets. Feinstein is one of the wealthiest
member of congress, if not _the_ wealthiest. she jets back and forth between CA
and DC in her husband's private jet.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)having a "view to die for." In fact over one million Iraqis and several thousand GI's did die for that particular view.
Iggy
(1,418 posts)are like two genocidal peas in a pod.
I can't believe CA "progressive" voters continue to keep this ultimate one
percenter in office.. it's weak, very weak
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)My faith in government has been eroding continuously since 1963, when I first heard a SNCC organizer speak about what was happening in the southern US. Since the we've had Vietnam, Chile, mercenary wars in Africa, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, two wars in Iraq, Afghanistan (both the Russian and American versions), 9/11, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, the official response to Katrina - not to mention the relentless drip, drip, drip of the Kennedy assasination...
In light of all this it's amazing to me that anyone can still believe there are no ulterior motives in this case.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Clearly, the USA government and it's dirty, filthy, lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, scum "intelligence" community is engaged in a smear campaign to silence not only Assange, but also anyone else that even thinks of exposing the shit they do.
That the current administration either allows this to happen or is complicit in doing it, should deeply concern every one of us.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)How bout "Thinks rape actually is a serious offense"?
Or "Understands that doing good in one area doesn't mean always good in all areas"?
Or "Understands what is covered by the Espionage Act and so isn't falling for the story"?
Or "Trusts all public figures equally poorly"?
This isn't a "with government" or "against government" situation, despite Assange's attempts to frame it as such.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I feel really uncomfortable with dismissing rape charges as casually as waving off a waiter from pouring more coffee. A charge of rape in my view is something that should be taken seriously and not summarily second-guessed, equivocated, or rationalized. It is an unspoken bond among women and I stand in solidarity with that.
randome
(34,845 posts) 
shanti
(21,785 posts) 
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)If initiating sex with a sleeping sex partner is rape,then I have been raped at least monthly for a number of years by the same person.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Not at all surprising that the defense of this blatant authoritarianism appears limited to the usual embedded apologists for this type of crap, plus the scattered newcomers who predictably appear whenever the one percent consider a topic particularly important to spin.
Wake the hell up, America.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)are really just outraged at how people are redefining rape, or minimizing rape, and that kind of thing. This particular case might very well not be about rape - I'd have to see evidence, but I admit to being skeptical due to the political reasons to hunt for Assange. But I've read some scary things from people and THAT is what people are reacting to. Not this specific case and these specific charges so much as the whole attitude some folks have about rape.
Nine
(1,741 posts)As the Onion puts it, http://www.theonion.com/articles/not-even-julian-assange-clear-on-whats-going-on-wi,29203/
I honestly have never followed the Assange/Wikileaks issues that much so all I can really talk about are my intuitions and general feelings; I concede these aren't based much on facts.
I'm a middle-aged midwestern Dem who doesn't always feel aligned with younger, "edgier" progressives. I feel like I'm expected to have all this enthusiasm for Assange/Wikileaks just like I'm supposed to be gaga over Occupy Wall Street, but I have my doubts about both. I'm a party-line gal. I don't love the idea of lots of sensitive government information being exposed willy-nilly, and it seems like a lot of power for one person to hold. And Assange just strikes me as a bit cocky, which is not a trait I admire. You can say my opinion doesn't count for much, but there it is. Just adding my data and stats as requested.
randome
(34,845 posts)
Nine
(1,741 posts) just1voice
(1,362 posts)To suggest that anti-Assange propagandists are just young and stupid is just wrong, there are just as many young and politically aware people now, probably more due to internet usage.
Propaganda is the problem and this place is full of propagandists and people who don't even know they are nothing but "defacto mouthpieces for conservative agitprop" -- NY Times. You could poll people and ask them "how brainwashed do you think you are?" but almost all would say they're not, even though they clearly are.
I agree with you about Assange, he's a member of the press who's being constantly threatened for nothing more than doing his job.
roody
(10,849 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:39 AM - Edit history (2)
I mean, it seems way too convenient, and suspicious that all of a sudden this guy who isn't really charged with anything, yet, is suddenly the subject of a VERY obsessive international police pursuit.
if it's really "just about the rape charges", Sweden could make assurances that there isn't going to be further extradition. To me, it sounds like "Get him any way possible, on anything".
If the international community is really that concerned about rape and sexual abuse, why hasn't anyone brought the Pope in on conspiracy charges?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And while doing so, I applaud your creativity - you are the first person I have read on any blog to point out that if the "international community" were all that concerned about justice for those who have been maliciously sexually mistreated, the Pope should really be Numero Uno on the list, so here is my answer:
Julian Assange is a thorn in the side of the Powers that Be, while
The Pope is One of Them.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Like I said; I don't have all the facts, but on the surface the story smells mighty fishy.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)All the guy did was tell the truth. For that, the government of the United States made him an outlaw.
Know your BFEE: WikiLeaks Stratfor Dump Exposes Continued Secret Government Warmongering
BTW: I love my country -- even when a whistleblower shows me when the nation is in the wrong. What I can't stand are the warmongers and traitors.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I think it has less to do with generation and gender and more to do with authoritarianism.
For one disposed to authoritarianism can also be a democrat. liberal, male and female and young and old.
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)I'm fine with people reporting news worthy items, but that doesn't give you a pass on legal matters pertaining to the reporting of that news or unlawful sexual behavior.
qb
(5,924 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)"According to a telephone survey of 1,029 US residents age 18 and older, conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in December 2010, 70% of American respondents – particularly Republicans and older people – think the leaks are doing more harm than good by allowing enemies of the United States government to see confidential and secret information about U.S. foreign policy. Approximately 22% – especially young liberals – think the leaks are doing more good than harm by making the U.S. government more transparent and accountable. A majority of 59% also want to see the people behind WikiLeaks prosecuted, while 31% said the publication of secrets is protected under the First Amendment guarantee of a free press."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_of_WikiLeaks
Old right-wing types vs young left-wing types. Seems that DU has it's share of old right-wing types .
Here's the pdf link:
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/US101202/McClatchy/McClatchy_Marist%20Poll_National%20Survey_December%2010,%202010.pdf
Dem women are more inclined to think that Wikileaks is not protected by 1st amendment and should be prosecuted than Dem men.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Side with him on the leaks issue, but if he murdered somebody, it'd be a different call....
Response to WillyT (Original post)
Post removed
Time for change
(13,737 posts)
janlyn
(735 posts)If this was real wouldn't sweden press charges against him? after all he is only wanted for questioning....
Things that make you go HMMMMMMM!!!
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)
1monster
(11,045 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It's all about Assange's threat to expose BoA. That's when the shit hit the fan.
Let's look at the time line...
Wikileaks was launched in 2006. Little happened to the organization or Assange for the next 4 years, despite releasing vast volumes (2 million or more) of embarrassing diplomatic traffic.
Then in early 2010 Assange revealed that Wikileaks had a bank executive's hard drive, later confirmed to be from BoA.
And my, how things changed...
Aug 2010: Arrest warrant for Assange issued in Sweden , but dropped a day later, then reinstated a week and a half later.
Oct 2010: Daniel Domscheit-Berg defects and subsequently deletes the BoA files he stole from the Wikileaks server.
Dec 2010: Second Swedish arrest warrant issued for Assange;
Dec 2010: Wikileaks web site is shut down, and its financial conduits are closed.
Feb 2011: Anonymous hacked HBGary's servers. The resulting email dump revealed BoA's hiring of HBGary to being down Wikileaks.
And we all know what's happened since then.
All this fuss and drama about war crimes and rape, when all along it was about the money.
That's the way the system works - throw up a smokescreen and have a bunch of willing dupes (paid disinformants? useful idiots? naive? single-issue people who are invested in rape or security issues? Probably a combination of all of them) ready to blow the smoke around, to obscure the actual movement of the troops.
It's not about rape.
It's not about war crimes.
It's not about diplomatic embarrassment.
It's about money.
It's always about money.
flobee1
(870 posts)Assange, Manning, and all whistleblowers past present and future.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)CabCurious
(954 posts)Regardless of my support of the wikileaks principles.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)you should really make this a poll with other choices, it would be much more telling and informative.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)IMO the PTB knows that we on the left are sensitive to the rights of women and so set him up with a BS rape charge for that very reason to make it harder to defend him. It is similar to how the PTB's propagandists call criticisms of "Free Trade" racist and xenophobic. They know exactly how to divide us and make us squirm.
antiquie
(4,299 posts)Please post the tally.
Thank you.