General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Have No Words... The Rape Threads Meet The Authoritarian Threads...
Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4149970
Just remember... if this ever gets proved to be governmental manipulation over these charges to impugn Assange... and are found true to be made-up...
The cause of victims of rape will be set back again... for years.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Egnever
(21,506 posts)What will it be then?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)It's interesting that in order to depose him... he has to leave his sanctuary.
Would you encourage the Swedish Government to go to the Equadorian Embassy to get this taken care of ?
hack89
(39,181 posts)they have made it clear, however, that their intent all along was to arrest him - this "interview" is much more than just getting his statement. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between the Swedish and US judicial systems that is causing a lot of misunderstanding and friction here.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)The only way i would accept such an meeting at the embassy(if i was a part of the Swedish justice system) since it has way to many pitfalls when outside of Swedish soil/territory was if Ecuador agreed(preferably signed) to hand Assange over if the decision is to arrest him after the interview.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)stated clearly that she was not raped and has no fear of Assange, while the other has been caught in a huge lie, presenting what she called 'evidence' which DNA proved to be false, I don't think most people in the world are concerned about him being a 'douche who assaults women'. Not to mention how sexually active he was throughout his life and this one woman, an extremist known for her weird views on how to get 'revenge on men who dump you', appears to be the only one claiming abuse.
They have had three long years to present their evidence, and so far have failed to do so. Few people from around the globe believe a word of these allegations at this point.
Not to mention the CIA leaked memo discussing how to 'get' Assange after he revealed that he had info on corruption in a Major Bank, just one month prior to these allegations, that the way to 'get' him was to fabricate a sex scandal. Wikileaks published that memo several months before it all came to pass.
As a woman I am sick to death of women being used for political purposes and need absolute concrete proof whenever someone like this, who was exposing corruption in Governments and the Big Banks conveniently gets accused of sexual crimes.
Still waiting after three years for the Charges to be filed.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)
tosh
(4,453 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and Crooked Banksters. But facts never change, while it is dizzying to watch the ever changing attempts to deny the facts surrounding this 'case'.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)false in every way. A victim has not recanted. She has been shamed and wrote about the victim shamming Assange supporters inflicted on here. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/i-was-targeted-after-i-made-assange-sex-crime-claim-says-accuser-of-wikileaks-founder-8613006.html
The court record makes clear that Sabrina1's rendition of the Swedish case is entirely false. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
The case has stalled because Assane is defying a court order to appear in Sweden. His standing there is as an accused person, not merely a suspect. The ONLY reason formal charges haven't been filed is because Swedish law requires that charges be filed at the conclusion of the investigation, and Assange is evading the court order to appear to finish it. All of this is laid out in the ruling against his appeal to overturn the extradition order.
So the question is why do people here falsify the record to protect an accused sexual assailant?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)He is evading a court order to appear in Sweden. I have posted the legal record. The court makes clear the Swedish investigation has stalled because Assange refuses to appear. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
Assange is an accused person in Sweden. The ONLY reason charges haven't been filed is because the Swedish legal system only allows for charges at the end of the investigation. The star quarterback who you deem to be so much more important than his victims has hidden out for three years and refused to comply with a Swedish court order to appear.
Either you have willfully refused to acquaint yourself with the information from the case or you are deliberately posting false claims. You of course have no sources for your swill. You do not refer to the court record because it explicitly contradicts your bullshit.
You need to read that court document. If I see you post that same false information again, I will know that you are not simply makign a mistake but instead deliberately falsifying the record to shield an accused sexual assailant.
"As a woman" I am sick to death of seeing women invoke their gender to stand behind accused rapists. Women supported the rapists in Steubenville for generations until the video made it impossible to do so any longer.
Nine
(1,741 posts)You should really use your gift in this country. There's such a backlog in our court system it would be an immense help if you could just tell us which ones are innocent and which ones are guilty so that we don't have to bother with those pesky trials.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But the .1% are covering his ass as best as they can, sadly. And the fact that they've been trying to smear these victims, take statements out of context, etc., *really* speaks volumes about what's really going on. And it doesn't speak well about Mr. Assange. At all.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Well aren't you just precious. Really. The man is trying to expose all the huge secrets of the corporatocracy and all the evil deeds of the world's megabanks and you think they're PROTECTING HIM? Thanks for the huge laugh, I really needed that this morning.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Hell, 3 years ago I thought he was a good guy, too. Believe me......but having looked into the guy, his past, and his associates(Joran Jermas, anyone), etc....now I know that he isn't what he seems.
While TPTB do play up both sides, there's no real mistaking this; he's one of their pawns. A useful idiot as it were. Just like Eddie Snowden.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Enough to convince a good number of people that they're trying to protect a man who has been an utter thorn in their sides for many years. He may be a pawn in the sense that he's being manipulated, but he sure as fuck isn't being protected. That's just an enormous joke.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If he really had done any real harm to the banksters or any of the crooks in government(and he didn't), you and I both know that he would not enjoy the good press that he gets now; he'd be largely invisible in the mainstream media. And there's a good chance he would have been disappeared, too.
And yet, neither of these things has happened. Hell, if those women hadn't come forward, he'd be a free man now, free to cause havoc as he sees fit.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)they're protecting him. It means they're doing everything in their power behind the scenes to keep him silenced, they've already done a damned good job of that. They are certainly not protecting the biggest thorn in their sides with "good press" (whatever the hell that may be). I typically don't associate multiple rape accusations with 'good press', but what do I know?
Honest question, what do you think the .1% has to gain by protecting Assange? What do they have to gain knowing he's somewhat free and not confined to a jail cell? I've heard so many conspiracy theories regarding Assange, but to hear that the corporatocracy are protecting him has to be one of the silliest I've heard.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Only problem is, it's pretty much been proven that he *did* do something to these poor women. If anything at all, if he goes free, what it'll really say is that the court system truly *can* be stacked in favor of rapists with enough money to buy good lawyers.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Would seem to solve a lot of problems.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'd hope it was just a case of someone screwing up, but even Sweden has a few corrupt cops.....I'd be *very* concerned right now, TBH.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)secondly, what filthy scumbag would use this... if it turns out to be as you suggested, as a means to deny rape victims justice? what piece of shit would do that?
and third, the way we are handling rape today in society, our entertainment, police departments and criminal courts, THAT has already set us way back. i do not see how anything else could get us back much further when an admitted rapist of a 14 yr old gets no time. or a coach gets a 16 yr old drunk and rapes her when she is unconscious, gets a year.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)If... and I underscoure IF...
It were to be found that this was all part of a security state smear...
How would you feel then.
That fact that you are convinced... under damned unique circumstances, you'd think there would be all sorts of hue and cry to solve the rape issue as soon as possible.
If solving this rape charge is THAT important to the Swedish government, it's easily done.
If they have something to hide... not so much.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what happens with assange. the disgusting part is.... his supports that cheer and root for the man, being totally unknowing of whether he held the woman down, refused to put on a condem and did his thing.... without a fuckin care in the world.
it is no less pathetic than 67k cheering a damn quaterback that could well be a rapist, simply because he throws a ball.
these women matter not at all to so many. that is the problem. and assange is not going to make or break this issue. it is soooo fuckin bigger than the little weasel.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If country A is willing to keep person B whose wanted by country C, there's really nothing country C can do.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Would you expect other police departments to go out of their legal jurisdiction even into another country's where they have no legal power whatsoever and couldn't make an arrest?
The British court has spoken... quite some time ago. It was ruled that he be extradited to Sweden to answer to the Swedish justice system just like any other alleged rapist, and instead he chose to evade justice by imprisoning himself in a foreign country's embassy. His claims that Sweden only wants him so they can hand him over to the US has been self-serving rubbish since he first opened his lying mouth. If the US actually did want him it would be our closest ally Britain that would have quietly handed him over, but the US doesn't fucking want him, and that's abundantly obvious after all this time though it should have been obvious from the first. He's already spent more time imprisoning himself in the embassy than he likely ever wouldn't have had to spend in a Swedish prison were he to even been found guilty, but hey, he's been getting free room and board all this time on Ecuador's dime. It never was prison or extradition to the US that he was worried about anyway... it's been all about his public reputation.
Might be a good idea to check out the source as well. Assange works for a Russian tv station that is syndicated by the government backed RT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/arts/television/julian-assange-starts-talk-show-on-russian-tv.html?_r=0
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, unveiled a new talk show on Tuesday with his own version of a sensational get: the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Mr. Assange, whose show is carried by RT, a Kremlin-backed news network and Web site, boasted that it was Mr. Nasrallah's first interview in the West since 2006. And the two wanted men had a cozy chat, even though they weren't on the same couch or even on the same continent.
Yet you want to believe that as ridiculous as it is that these two women are likely lying about their claims just because of who they made them against. How could it possibly be proven they lied anyway, and why on earth would he not WANT to clear his name? He admitted from the start that he had sex with both women on the dates in question, and no one else was there to witness or film it just like most every other rape incident.
Number23
(24,544 posts)case and are not swallowing the really blatant, almost laughable BS that a few in this thread (and others) are shoveling out with both hands.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that it is the Ecuadorian Embassy.
In London.
If you read the decision of the Belmarsh Court, you will remember that Mr. Assange's Swedish lawyer testified to the fact that he informed Assange that his upcoming interview with the prosecutor in Sweden would involve two things-- 1) a blood test, and 2) arrest.
Assange fled.
I suggest you read the facts and findings of the case---it would inform your argument.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/interactive/2011/feb/24/julian-assange-extradition-judgment
Someone who makes the claim "why don't they just depose him in the Embassy" comes across as ignorant of the facts of the case, and the laws of the jurisdictions concerned.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The supposed condom that he tore does not have his or her DNA on it.
The 2nd woman's testimony was that she had gone out for breakfast and laid back down with him and was half asleep when he started making out with her after a night of making out. She testified that she was willing to continue without a condom and refused to sign the statement that the police wrote for her saying otherwise.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)A sleeping person is presumed under law to be incapable of consent; therefore this is rape. Assange's lawyers admitted to the basic facts of the allegations against him. The facts were considered before the UK high court in Assange's appeal against extradition. It was found that the allegation of rape would be rape under English law.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Even if the other victim hadn't actually been raped(though I doubt that she was "lying" as some have asserted), this one case is enough.
He had sex with this woman while she was sleeping; you don't need to be a radfem to understand that sleeping people can't consent to sex or any other act. This *was* rape, pure and simple. And he should be held accountable for it.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)liar and her dna evidence didn't match.
"Poor women" my ass.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Because deep down, they *do* fear their attacked *will* come back and hurt them if they tell the truth.
As for the other woman, I dunno what's going on, exactly but I'd far sooner believe incompetence by the state, than her lying(no, it's not impossible, but far rarer than your average MRA would suspect).
Assange is a crooked piece of shit and his antics have may very well have set back the cause of truth-tellers everywhere for goodness knows how long; I'd like to be optimistic about this, but something tells me there may not be much reason to be.....
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I'm so glad to have another man tell me what I'm supposed to feel, because obviously I'm to clueless to know how I feel.
Unfortunately for you, I have a hard time taking direction. All I still feel is "Poor women, my ass." They dated a douce. They found out he was fucking them both. They plotted revenge. They regret plotting revenge. One, because she probably didn't expect it to go so far or turn so ugly. The other because she got caught fabricating her evidence.
In the meantime, maybe you, Mr. AverageJoe90, could provide me, "CluelessWoman60," with further instruction on "how women feel." And then maybe you could tell me "WhatWomenWant" because apparently my last 2 stalkers assumed that a single, late 50s woman wanted to fuck a toothless, juvenile registered sex offender and a brain damaged, alcoholic divorced janitor, because we all know that single women in their 50s are hot for sex and desperate.
When all this CluelessWomen60 wanted was to be left the fuck alone, which is why she was minding her own fucking business, dressing for *work* success, acting for *work* success, and did I mention, minding her own fucking business.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Believe me, not my intention. Apologies for any unintended offense. 
What I was saying(or trying to say anyway; I now realize the way I worded things was kinda poorly done and for that, I offer a sincere mea culpa for that as well.), TBH, was that there are rape victims out there who truly *don't* come out right away. And there are, sadly, some victims who do get intimidated into covering up again even after they do(and it's not their fault!). I've seen this kind of thing happen before; I realize that this may not necessarily have been what happened with the Assange case but it's a possibility that we can't ignore, I'm afraid.
And yes, I'm sorry to hear you were stalked & attacked by these two creeps. *Nobody* deserves to be raped, stalked, etc.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)women were too stupid to know when they have been harmed. That is the very essence of 'paternalism'. Poor little woman, let us men decide for you what you should be thinking.
STOP IT! The woman in question is an extremely intelligent woman, educated, accomplished and capable of making decisions for herself without some man telling her what she should think.
Her family has spoken out also, outraged at the 'paternalism' of the 'defense' attorney who she did not hire, but who inserted himself into the case, and just like you, told her 'you don't know your own mind, the prosecution will decide for you whether you should be angry or not'. Yes, Sweden actually has an extremist faction on the far, far left, that believes women are not capable of thinking for themselves.
Just stop these assaults on women WE KNOW WHEN WE ARE BEING HARMED.
So sick of this *&^t.
She was not raped, she has stated that clearly. She was tricked into this case and I believe her. The lead defense attorney btw, is a known nut case from the extreme, insane loony fringes.
Please try to respect women who are NOT children and who, like men, actually do know when they are being harmed.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I actually wasn't trying to come across as paternalistic, TBH. I worded my statement poorly and I sincerely apologized for, and owned up to,, my mistake. And again, I offer my apologies for the miscommunication. I'll try to be more careful in the future. 
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)you claim outrage about paternalism and claim she wasn't raped and that she is educated and aclomplished and capable and claim in the same thread she was tricked into what she did.Which is it?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)themselves also? Great, on a Democratic forum we actually have people who believe that women are too stupid to know whether or not they have been harmed and need men, like the loony Swedish attorney to tell them whether or not they have been harmed?
This is disgusting. As a woman I thought I belonged to a party that respected women.
Unbelievable!
Nine
(1,741 posts)That is rape in my book and has nothing to do with how intelligent or capable the woman is.
Is the allegation true? I don't know. That is for a Swedish court to decide. Except that Assange believes he is above facing these allegations in a court of law and you apparently believe that too.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It truly isn't difficult to understand.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)because the government (s) will never let charges against Julian Assange or any whistle blower ever be made up.
I would have thought better of Sweden. They can end this now by agreeing to interview him via closed satellite to get the appropriate testimony, but they haven't. A whole lot of countries want their hands on him because of the banking documents he has. That is the true crime he is guilty of - evidence of global banking guilt. Snowden is free (sort-of) because he didn't threaten the hegemony, just the lengths they go to.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The Assange case seems to illustrate just how far there is to go with that, quite honestly. Based on what we know of the allegatons in the case, what happened? In at least one instance? Assange is alleged to have had consensual sex, with a condom, with one of the alleged victims, while awake. She then alleges that she woke to find him penetrating her, without a condom. So she was asleep, and not able to consent, and in any case she wouldn't have consented to let him penetrate her without a condom. The argument that she had previously consented to intercourse, therefore this couldn't constitute rape, is not any different to the discredited notion that a man can't legally rape his own wife.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Sweden is unable to take his testimony without his physical presence. One of the most connected countries in the world is unable to take a secure link testimony from Assange.
Mind you, I think he should be held before a jury and his guilt or innocence proven, but at the risk of being Chelsea Manning'd to Leavenworth or Gitmo? I think I'd choose being exiled to the Ecuadorian Embassy, first. I think he knows exactly what the risks are if he leaves, and it has nothing to do with standing trial for rape. If he is guilty of rape, his sentence in Sweden won't be as horrible as where he already is - confined.
No. He's rightly afraid of being extradited to the US and sent to a black site, Leavenworth or Gitmo.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And it's not up to him, as a person accused of a crime, to dictate the terms on which the investigation is conducted.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Possession is 9/10ths of consent. Where have I heard that before?
They want to arrest him because he failed to show for QUESTIONING. Nobody thinks that wasn't about taking him into custody. According to Swedish law, he could have shown for just being questioned, but then extradited to the US.
I'm eager to hear if you think it would have ended with a rape charge and doing time in Sweden. No, no one thinks that, and neither do you.
Please speculate how well you think the US would have treated him, after he was held in custody in Sweden pre-trial (not convicted of anything) and extradited to the US.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And you exhibit the same ignorance of relevant Swedish law that everyone else making the same arguments seems to have. Read this and educate yourself.
And Assange can't be extradited from Sweden to the US. Not without the consent of the UK as well. Which begs the question of why, if the US is so eager to have his extradition, they don't extradite from the UK directly and cut out the middleman? http://ffgqc.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/julian-the-asylum-seeker/
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And he can be. I'm not sure why you are attempting to obfuscate this point because he is an Australian citizen ... uh, have you read laws on extradition under Australians in the UK? No? Thought you did, but attempted to make it sound like you didn't.
The UK attempted to ARREST him by intruding on the Ecuadorian embassy. It wasn't because they thought he raped a woman. If that were the case, they would be violating sovereignty here in the US to track down rapists.
Need I remind you that violation of sovereignty is a theme here? Wait, was that Austria, that said No?
There are some recurring elements. Detaining a person for 8 hours at the airport. The only thing Laura Poitras has in her favor is that she is in Germany and they actually stand by rules, don't look for ways to evade them, these days, because they know where it leads.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)And the UK has not attempted to arrest him by "intruding on" the Ecuadorean embassy. There are police OUTSIDE the embassy to arrest him if he sets foot outside it; he is a wanted fugitive.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Julian Assange is an Australian national. There are no ifs, ands or buts about his nationality.
They didn't threaten to enter the embassy? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/assange-embassy-ecuador-britain_n_1786104.html
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum
I clearly have no idea what I am talking about. SJ, usually, you are a voice of reason. I have no idea why Assange gets you into such an uproar. He is a fugitive because he cannot be guaranteed any sort of justice. If Sweden would declare that they would handle the case in country and not extradite him to the US or UK, he'd probably be glad to get out of the Ecuadorian embassy, but he hasn't been granted anything of the sort.
If he's guilty of rape, let him serve his time for that, but don't hunt him down like a dog for being a truth teller about things that have nothing to do with his crimes, but the crimes of others.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Section 58, Extradition Act 2003, specifies that Her Majesty's Secretary of State is required to consent to further extradition to a third country. The fact that Assange is an Australian national is neither here nor there. See also Article 28 of the 2002 European Framework decision re European Arrest Warrant and surrender procedures, here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002F0584:en:HTML
Legally any extradition request has to be handled on its merits, after a proper hearing in court; the Swedish government can't say "we won't extradite him" because they've received no such request and it's the job of the judiciary to rule on such a request should there be one.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"it's the job of the judiciary to rule on such a request should there be one."
Legal deals are made all of the time, as are political ones. Grant him political asylum from the charges of espionage, and I'm sure he'd go for it.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)precept that courts do not rule on possible charges, but on actual ones.
struggle4progress
(126,153 posts)Sweden went to court in the UK to ask that Assange be extradited to Sweden so that Sweden could prosecute him for rape. The UK courts determined that Sweden was indeed seeking Assange in order to prosecute him for rape and determined that extradition request was proper
The issue here is not some desire of Swedish authorities to have a little conversation with Assange, whether by video-link or over tea and crumpets. Sweden intends to take Assange into custody in order to proceed with prosecution, and there is accordingly a Swedish arrest warrant, judicially-sanctioned by a proper Swedish court, for that purpose
Under the extradition treaty governing extraditions between the UK and Sweden, Sweden cannot forward extradite Assange to a third country without the consent of the UK, once the UK has extradited him to Sweden: this means that Assange would be able to fight such a forward extradition request in both the Swedish and the UK courts. Moreover, one of Assange's own witnesses in the UK case testified that forward extradition from Sweden to the US in this case would be a practical impossibility. For these and other reasons, extradition to the US directly from the UK would be much easier than extradition from the UK to Sweden followed by forward extradition from Sweden to the US. And, in any case, no charges against Assange have been filed to date in the US
Unlike Manning, Assange is not subject to UCMJ, and were the US to decide to file charges against Assange, those charges could not be the charges filed against Manning. No prisoner has been brought to Guatanamo Bay since the Bush era, and Mr Obama would have closed the facility by now, were it not for Congressional obstruction of his stated intent to do so
The scenarios pushed by Assange and his lawyers are either just cynical bullshizz or evidence of paranoid mental defect
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)out for breakfast and the laid down next to him and fell half asleep when he started making out with her. Not asleep. Her testimony was that she consented. And she refused to sign the police report accusing him of rape.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
That isn't "consent".
Aerows
(39,961 posts)isn't recognition of international sovereignty, either.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Rape and sexual assault to which his lawyers have all but admitted.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)be questioned in Sweden with an agreement that he not be extradited to other places for espionage.
See? Simple. Everyone gets justice.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
This has been repeatedly explained. Your evident wilful ignorance in not reading the provided information doesn't help your arguments.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)(not directed at you) but governmental and political willful ignorance.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)For that matter, I've never seen anybody but Ecuador say that the plane was "grounded" (even the pilot on the night disagrees at the time).
struggle4progress
(126,153 posts)but it was yet another example of a bullshizz conspiracy theory spun from deliberate misquotes and the loosest attention to facts
The allegation seemed to me to insult the Austrians, French, Portuguese, and Spanish simultaneously, representing them all as US colonies and lacking any functioning democratic institutions of their own
Of course, given the history of Latin America, continuing for many decades and up through the Bush II era, the narrative understandably had some populist appeal there
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Sorry.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)It's very much as though the suspicion of rape has more power than an actual conviction of committing it.
Isn't it?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't really see that there is any question. By his own admission, through his lawyer, Julian Assange is a rapist. full stop. The crime he stands accused of in Sweden constitutes rape under English law. He admits, through his lawyer, to the actions set forth in the complaint, in that he did penetrate the complainant while she was sleeping, without using a condom, when previous consensual intercourse had been with a condom (and she was clear her consent was conditional on his use of one) and while awake. (Sleeping persons may not consent. See here: and here.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)"While Emmerson was not vouching for the accuracy of these accounts"...
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)It seems to us that the conduct described as offence 1 fairly and properly describes the conduct as set out in AA's statement in relation to what is complained of restricting her movement by violence. We accept that Mr Assange subsequently allowed AA to move so she could find a condom for him to use, but at the point in time to which the offence relates, we do not read anything in her statement to indicate consent to his restraining her. Indeed her statement indicates precisely the opposite at the point of time to which it relates. It of course might well be argued that his subsequent decision to let go of her might indicate a lack of coercion or consent to what followed, but at the point of time to which the offence relates, we consider the conduct of which he is charged to have been fairly and accurately described. As we have set out at paragraph 71.v) above, the matters alleged are sufficient, in our view, and to the extent relevant, to impel the inference of knowledge. The context does not change our view.
It must therefore follow in respect of offence 1 that the challenge made fails, even if the extraneous material was taken into account.
(much snipped here)
The gravamen of Mr Assange' s argument is that the description of the offence by the Prosecutor does not set out the continuum of events and the context, but seeks to isolate one aspect. That continuum and context showed that she agreed to sexual intercourse when she realised what was happening; it cannot therefore be alleged that he did not have a reasonable belief in consent. We accept Ms Montgomery's observations about how far it would be right to see what happened afterwards as consensual rather than reluctant submission. But the fact of protected sexual intercourse on other occasions cannot show that she was, or that Mr Assange could reasonably have believed that she was, in her sleep consenting to unprotected intercourse. The fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her. Once awake she was deciding whether to let him go on doing what he had started. However it is clear that she is saying that she would rather he had not started at all and had not consented. The prosecution case on rape is or includes the start of sexual intercourse: its references to "consummation" cannot in context be confined to its conclusion or to ejaculation. It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)It comes down to supporting their star quarterback. Nothing else matters. They will victim shame, ignore and falsify information to keep their hero from facing the legal consequences of allegedly assaulting women. He is too important to be held to account. The human rights of his victims are meaningless. And people wonder why rape is so prevalent. This is rape culture in action, Steubenville 2.0.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and his apologists choice to put Assange above the law and above the basic rights of the women he is accused of assaulting. They have made very clear that they see men like Assange too important to have to face the legal consequences for sexual assault of women. In belittling the rights of the victims, they expose their character.
It's a basic principal: no one is above the law or too important to not face criminal prosecution for rape. Willfully distorting or ignoring the legal record to protect Assange or blaming his alleged victims is no different from what the people of Steubenville did to protect the football players they thought too important to be subject to rape prosecution. Either one cares about equal rights and countering rape or one doesn't. I don't care who an sexual assailant is, whether the Deli Lama or my own brother--he needs to face his accuser.
I posted legal documents all over that thread and the Assange apologists refused to read the UK Supreme Court ruling or deliberately distorted it. I have no respect for such behavior. It is both intellectually weak and dishonest.
There is indeed an authoritarian cover up, only it's by those who think this man too important to have to comply with a court order in the investigation of an assault on two women. Clearly many see those women's lives as insignificant compared to a "great man" like Assange. There is no level at which that is not completely disgusting. Thousands of people have shamed Assange's victim, just as gang raped high school girls have been shamed. They are one in the same. The only difference is some value high school jocks as important while others value Assange. That they think those men more important than the law or women's lives says everything there is to know about who they are.
If the charges are not substantiated, Assange can present his case and be cleared. However, it is quite obvious that no one who is innocent hides from prosecutors and police for three years.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)than he already has, if he admitted to rape and served time in Sweden. He's been locked up for three years.
Why do you think he has chosen to give himself a harsher sentence? Why do you think that a few months ago he uploaded a 400 gb "insurance" file?
No one wants Assange for rape. They want Assange because he ended up knowing too much and blabbed about it.
Sweden is such an easy place to do time, the police forgot to lock the prisoners in there cells one night, and they ended up celebrating by baking chocolate cake and watching TV. http://imgace.com/pic/2013/03/staff-forgets-to-lock-up-swedish-inmates-they-baked-chocolate-cake-and-watched-t-v/
Please don't tell me Assange is afraid of a rape charge. He's afraid of being extraordinarily renditioned and I don't blame him.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)He is hiding because he has an enormous ego, believes he does not need consent to have sex with a woman, and he shouldn't have to face charges for it.
Your entire argument makes no sense. There are no charges pending form the US. Nor is there an order of extradition. If it turned that that the US was trying to nab him in Sweden, he could just as easily take refuge in that Ecuadorian Embassy at that time. The US could have taken him from the UK, which has far closer relations with the US than does Sweden. The facts simply do not fit the idea that he is doing anything other than evading prosecution for sexual assault.
No one should be above the law. There is nothing served by protecting Assange other than feeding into his ego. The information on Wikileaks is not compromised by his going to Sweden, and Wikileaks continues to operate. This is about believing he is too important to be subject to charges waged by mere women.
This is the second time I have discussed this issue with you. The first you tried to pass off a Tweet in Swedish as so-called evidence that the victim had recanted her story, which the court record proves to be false. I have laid out legal documentation for anyone to read. Here again is the appellate ruling of the UK Supreme Court. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
It is for you to decide if you value evidence, intellectual integrity, and the lives of victims of sexual assault, or are more invested in fanning Assange's cult of personality. I have nothing else to say on the matter. The court record is sufficient.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Does that include George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Jamie Dimon, Loyd Blankfein, Joe Arrpio, Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, Rick Scott, Karl Rove, and a THOUSAND others ???
I'd put them WAY ahead of Jullian Assange.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)for three years because he is afraid of facing charges in Sweden for rape?
We are both feminists. I abhor rape. He should stand trial for it. What he shouldn't do is expose himself to being extradited to any number of countries that want him for espionage when he didn't profit over exposing governments of crimes.
By the way, I don't recall ever minimizing the claims of the women that claimed he raped them. I wouldn't do that for a number of reasons, and it bugs me that you think I would. On the other hand, I also don't believe in trying someone for the crime of exposing information under the guise of claiming they are rapists when they haven't been tried for it.
Guarantee he won't be extradited from the country in which he is being charged (Sweden), will face the consequences in that country if found guilty, which is politically possible, and I'm pretty sure he'd show up.
EDIT: Oh, and PS. I don't have a Twitter account and I live on the Gulf Coast. I have never been to Sweden, though I hear they make great meatballs, but I definitely don't speak Swedish (or Norwegian or Danish, for that matter).
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Assange is just a kind of creepy, kind of paranoid dude with an awesome website. There are a lot of those guys.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)On the other hand, if he is innocent, there is no good reason for him to return to Sweden to face possible wrongful conviction or, even worse, extradition to the USA.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Your thinking him innocent does not make it so. The purpose of the extradition order is to compel him to face the Swedish court order to finish questioning to determine if final charges should be waged. He is not merely a suspect but an accused person under Swedish law, and that standing carries with it a burden of evidence.
This document is the ruling from the UK Supreme Court of Assange's appeal to overturn his extradition order to Sweden. The court carefully lays out the progress of the investigation and the nature of Assange's standing under Swedish law in providing the legal reasoning for denying the appeal. It is a primary document.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I don't think he is innocent. But if he is innocent (i.e., if he didn't commit a crime), why should he risk wrongful conviction by returning to Sweden?
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)This is why extradition treaties exist. The last thing we need is for anyone sufficiently wealthy and connected to be able to flee the jurisdiction and be forever safe from prosecution.
And Assange doesn't get special rights just because he has a fanclub. If he's innocent, he can stand trial and prove his innocence just like any other innocent person that finds themselves accused of a crime.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Suppose (hypothetically) that Assange is innocent. Then there is nothing wrong with him choosing not to risk wrongful conviction by avoiding a trial. Innocent people have no obligation to stand trial. Of course, society has a good reason to ensure that things like wealth or popularity (having a "fan club" as you put it) do not exempt people from trials. But if I were, say, wealthy and also innocent, then I would use my wealth, if necessary, to avoid a trial that might well result in my being convicted of a crime I didn't commit. And what would be wrong with that?
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)Which is why we don't leave it up to the individual consciences and civic responsibility of the accused. I don't know where you are getting your legal advice, but if you skip trial as a criminal defendant, you'll get to learn all about bench warrants and contempt of court charges, innocent or not.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)
Think about that for a second, and you'll realize what a bad principle that is.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)A very good principle.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If everybody has a right to flee trial (and everybody thinks they're innocent, remember) then why have a criminal justice system in the first place?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)"Anyone who thinks they are innocent has no obligation to risk wrongful conviction." That would be a horrible principle. My principle is "Anyone who is innocent has no obligation to risk wrongful conviction." If Assange knows that the accusations against him are false, he has no obligation to risk wrongful conviction by going back to Sweden.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Everybody thinks they're innocent, or will claim to think they're innocent.
Case in point, rapists think they're innocent all the time.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 06:55 PM - Edit history (2)
Sometimes people accused of a crime really do know that they are innocent. I am saying that such individuals have no obligation to risk wrongful conviction. You apparently think that even if I know that an accusation against me is false, I should participate in my accuser's attempt to unjustly convict me. That strikes me as clearly mistaken.
(edited to eliminate rudeness)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What you're suggesting is the end of society.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)can't avoid prosecution. So obviously society won't end if people who are falsely accused of a serious crime recognize that they have no obligation to risk wrongful conviction. Unlike most people, Assange might be able to avoid prosecution. If he knows that the accusations against him are false, I hope he succeeds. If he is guilty, I hope he does not succeed.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and the human rights of his victims matter. No one should be above the law. Obviously he thinks himself too important to go to Sweden, as do his apologists. His hiding out indicates a consciousness of guilt and in the US could be used in court as evidence of such.
Rapists go on the run all the time. The Max Factor heir was one such case. In Assange's case, he has hundreds of thousands if not millions of people lying on his behalf, working to conceal him from legal consequences, and shaming his victims. That is what makes the world safe for rapists. Here we are witnessing the active propagation of rape culture. This is why rape is so common and only a tiny percentage of assailants do jail time.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)If he is innocent, then he should do whatever is the safest course of action.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and who you are. Do you stand with an accused rapist in evading prosecution or do you respect the human rights of victims to have their case heard in court? My position is clear. No one is above the law, and I will sooner slit my throat then shield an accused assailant.
Rapists often believe they are innocent because they feel themselves entitled to take women at will. Those women exist as objects for their sexual gratification, not as human beings with rights.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I don't stand for either the accuser or the accused in this case. I stand for justice.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)He will get to walk free for the rest of his life ???
Because I do not.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)because no one really wants him to stand trial for rape. They want him because he embarrassed governments, banks and others. It's the same reason Snowden is hiding in Russia, despite telling the world something that is completely relevant. They brought Snowden's girlfriend into it, calling her a pole dancer, etc. in an attempt to discredit him (as though being a ballet dancer is something shameful).
It rather shames me that I see feminists fall for this bullshit when this isn't a feminist issue, it's an oppressive hegemony issue that oppresses people of both genders for the sake of the profit of a few of both genders. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Laura Poitras get arrested on trumped up charges in the near future. Our banking overlords don't like it when we see behind the curtain.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Thank you.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)There are no charges pending form the US. Nor is there an order of extradition. If it turned that that the US was trying to nab him in Sweden, he could just as easily take refuge in that Ecuadorian Embassy at that time. The US could have taken him from the UK, which has far closer relations with the US than does Sweden. The facts simply do not fit the idea that he is doing anything other than evading prosecution for sexual assault.
The whole argument in defense of Assange depends on victim shamming and victim blaming. I care about women having a right to be free from sexual assault, and I have zero respect for efforts to shield an accused assailant from prosecution.
Clearly many here see Assange as more important than mere women. Julian Assange's personal freedom from prosecution serves no one but Assange himself. The availability of the information he released through Wikileaks doesn't depend on his evading charges for sexual assault. Wikileaks carries on without Assange. This is all about worship of what some see as a "great man" too important to be subject to justice for assaulting mere women. Assange has carefully cultivated that view, and his worshipers follow along. That, by the way, is exactly how heads of religious cults have so often gotten away with rampant sexual abuse and assault. People turn up to defend Assange as they for virtually every high-profile rape suspect (though as court records show, Assange is not simply a suspect but a person accused under Swedish law). This case no different from any other victim shaming and assailant shielding.
Additionally, if their cause were just, they would not need to make false claims about Assange's legal standing. Their absolute determination to ignore the actual legal record tells me the truth is meaningless to them. I don't care who the accused rapist or sexual assailant is. The fact work to shield him from prosecution is all I need need to know about their character.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)ANYONE who FALSELY accuses ANYONE of rape ???
Because the women I knew, grew up around, was brother to...
Found THAT... to be the ultimate betrayal of both Feminism, AND victims of rape.
Your thoughts please.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I quote:
He will get to walk free for the rest of his life ???
You asked about his fate after being absolved of sexual assault charges. You did not ask about false accusations. There is a lot I could say about the subject of false accusations but at this point I want to know why you are intent of diverting the subject from what you asked previously. What is it that you actually care about here?
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
G'Night.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)
Your first question, which I already answered, or what should happen if he is falsely accused?
Your lack of clarity and shifting goal posts are not my responsibility.
If he is acquitted then he goes free. What he does after that is his responsibility. I hope you know an acquittal is not evidence of a false allegation. MRA adherents insist it is, but rational people do not. If the allegations are fabricated, the women should be prosecuted, as should be done in all cases of false rape allegations. Approximately 4% of rape allegations are false. That means there is a 96% probability the women are not lying. Do you want to hang a decision to support Assange's refuge from prosecution on that 4%? Many have accused the women of lying, just as many accused the girls of Steubenville of lying, just as has been done repeatedly in recent cases of young high school girls who were gang raped, shamed and bullied on social media and subsequently killed themselves.
The reason I said it isn't relevant to the current discussion is because in terms of DU, what matters is what people value: Do they value human rights for all? Or do they think some too important to face prosecution for sexual assault? Do they willy-nilly accuse victims of lying because they want to justify what is a morally unconscionable position of supporting an accused assailant's refuge from prosecution?
It is not whether I am proved wrong. I do not claim to know anything more than the court record shows. What I have said is that he should face charges like anyone else accused of sexual assault. The only question is who you and other DUers are: Do you believe in human rights for women and rape victims, or do you think men like Julian Assange should be exempt from prosecution because he is too important?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It is manipulative and despicable and shows their true level of concern for rape victims AND whistleblowers.
Assange is being pursued because he embarrasses the criminal authoritarian state, period. There is no other reason, and anyone with even a scintilla of honesty knows it.
Sabrina summed it up well in this old thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002828687
And when has a country ever pursued someone who has never been charged, not even on the misdemeanor allegation which would amount to a fine, with a warrant from INTERPOL?? Got any other cases like this you can cite?
The propaganda machine has shown many times that it is beneath shame, but this is perhaps the lowest of the low.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And 99% of the *real* agitprop has been covering for Assange's dirty ass.....just sayin'.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Otherwise you'll be labeled a misogynist.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Apparently the "propaganda machine" and its targets have been misidentified....In fact, we have had it all BACKWARDS!
It is a jaw-dropping revelation, as alarming and earthshaking as the threads a week ago that revealed that impoverished Americans' rage at looters and profiteers is wholly justified, but that we have had the wrong target in our sights! We have tragically misidentified the REAL threat to us.....a cunning Goldstein by the name of....wait for it....
Glenn Greenwald. 
Yes, Greenwald is the REAL looter and profiteer that Americans need to fear. Not the tentacled NSA, not the rapacious One Percent, and certainly not the corrupt, purchased politicians who have been driving millions into poverty through predatory corporate policy. No, it is Greenwald. He has power!
Glenn Greenwald is impoverishing me!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4031540
And now thank god we have you and your compatriots to identify the REAL propaganda machine, too.
Thank goodness you are here to defend the beleaguered NSA, the struggling global banks and corporations, the quivering and impoverished government of the United States, and the bedraggled One Percent against the Massive, Orchestrated Juggernaut of Propaganda being wielded against them by....poor Americans and Julian Assange... (cough).
The cadre of pro-corporate, pro-police state, pro-Third Way, pro-everything One Percent brigade at discussion sites across the internet has NOTHING to do with propaganda. It is merely a fluke of nature that they have swarmed into sites across the internet and shifted the political balance of DU and other discussion forums in just a few short months or years. It is merely an accident that they predictably and reliably swarm *every single discussion* that implicates this administration in the persecution of whistleblowers and journalists and assaults on the Constitution for the benefit of the One Percent. It is merely a bizarre accident that they evidence an influx and constant growth in their numbers that is unnatural to the point of being ridiculous**. And it is wholly a coincidence that they share a consistent set of rules and tactics for smearing liberals, disrupting liberal discussion, and fervently defending, minimizing, or denying *every single aspect* of the growing corporate authoritarian state.
How in the world will the voiceless US government, the helpless surveillance and corporate media machine, and the defenseless banks and corporations of the One Percent *ever* hope to overcome the dread power of the vast propaganda machine wielded by the people against them?!
__________________________________________
**
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)fine? Please....I'd like you to tell us which allegation you would take care of with a 'fine.'
There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are
described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
Number23
(24,544 posts)"authoritarian!!!!!" at any one that dares to believe that Julian Assange should face some semblance of justice for the crimes he is accused of committing.
Meanwhile, his Wikilieaks party crashed and burned before it even got started, he's spending yet another Christmas hiding out in an embassy avoiding arrest warrants for the "nonexistent" (according to his ardent fans) crimes for which he is charged and apparently feels are "existent" enough that he needs to hide from them, and the movie about him was a big old flop at the box office. But I'm sure that's all just part of the WORLD WIDE ANd UNIVERSAL AUTHORITAriAN CONsPIRaCY against him. 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)acquaint yourself with the 4-count EAW issued against Mr. Assange before you make such statements....at least get a working knowledge of the four counts on the warrant before you call any of them a 'misdemeanor.'
Let's have some fun, woo.....you go post the warrant, and tell us which count of the four alleged should be taken care of by a 'fine.'
bobduca
(1,763 posts)I note the same cadre of pro-surveillance, anti-assange posters who have clipboards of smears and coordinated talking points at the ready.
Once you actively ignore these posters whose obvious intention is to derail discussion and repeat lies, DU becomes much more about discussion and less about spamming hit pieces.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)War is Peace! 
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)with the observation that a second group of people are reacting to the charges solely because of the nature of the charges.
Had he been charged with armed robbery they would, imho, be supporting him as a likely victim of a plot by intelligence agents, and I believe they are being deliberately and cynically manipulated.
Thankfully, the electronic lynch-mob will not affect his future. I am pretty sure, however, that sooner or later he'll be disappeared.
I'll also heartily agree with your final paragraph. I have no interest in trying to have a discussion with posters that are so emotionally involved with a position that they can never accept a counter opinion. Thanks for the suggestion!
polly7
(20,582 posts)It had all the hallmarks of a setup from the get-go. And thank you for that link.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)what do you think was a set up?
polly7
(20,582 posts)and I mean that sincerely, I simply don't believe the rape charges, and have read hundreds of articles and posts here and elsewhere, as well as the EAW and everything else. I am not a rape apologist, I've survived it myself with the broken bones, ptsd and all the crap that never leaves you. Sabrina has said everything already that I agree with, 100%. I believe he's been a target for retaliation for Wikileaks publishing things that very powerful people all around the world have wanted kept hidden. Hope you're well!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)warrant?
Assange supporters claim a setup.....and never back that up. And I am telling you as a criminal defense attorney...this guy is acting like a rapist.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I am telling you ......... I think it's bull*.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 02:19 PM - Edit history (2)
read Assange's legal argument, right? Not that the acts did not happen....but that they were not rape.
Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.
In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson provided this summary of the allegations: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”
As in the case of the first incident, Emmerson argues that subsequent consent renders the entire encounter consensual, and legal.
http://studentactivism.net/2011/07/12/assange-lawyer-concedes/
Understand here, polly---Assange's lawyer conceded to the fact that his client penetrated a sleeping woman. He conceded to the fact that he held the other woman down.
Understand that the FACTS ALLEGED IN THE WARRANT were conceded to by the DEFENSE. The defense offered by Assange? That they were not rape.
So while you are high-fiving Sabrina, please understand my dismay---Mr. Assange's own attorney has agreed that facts alleged in the warrant are true. What he argued is not that they DID NOT HAPPEN....but that they were NOT RAPE.
You might want to read the whole Belmarsh decision on the case....
http://www.theguardian.com/law/interactive/2011/feb/24/julian-assange-extradition-judgment
struggle4progress
(126,153 posts)to have offended both of them enough by his treatment that they filed a police complaint
Within a week or so, Assange suddenly left Sweden when the authorities contacted his lawyer seeking a second interview with him. The recorded impression of the magistrate at Belmarsh, in questioning the lawyer regarding the details of that, was that Assange's lawyer was evasive and dishonest
Assange then launched a campaign through his close friends, such as the totalitarian anti-semite who goes by the pseudonym "Israel Shamir," to portray the women as part of a covert CIA scheme to entrap him. The conspiracy theories pushed in public by Assange and in lawyers thereafter become so unhinged that they did not dare to argue those theories during the subsequent UK extradition hearings, for fear of being laughed out of court should the contrary testimony of their own witnesses be thrown back in their faces. I have no idea whether the man would be found guilty under Swedish law, but in four separate proceedings at three levels of the UK courts, the courts found he was wanted in Sweden for proseciution on sexual assault allegations and ordered his extradition, at which point Assange neglected his remaining appeals and jumped bail, stiffing his supporters of substantial sums
The impression is that the man is a histrionic and immature cad. Whether or not he is a cad, of course, does not prove or disprove the sexual allegations, nor does it determine whether or not he might have done something useful here or there
But attention to facts, and the development of careful analyses based on actual facts, is critical for leftists, as well as for liberals or progressives, if we want to win any of the important struggles ahead of us. The reality is that Assange is not a friend of the left (he describes himself as a free market libertarian); he is not a friend of those who want to democratize society (his friend "Israel Shamir" used some of the Wikileaks cables to help bolster a dictator); he is not a friend of those concerned about climate change (he has taken credit for release of the so-called "Climategate" used by rightwingers to create a carefully-timed phony scandal that scuttled international progress on carbon emissions) ...
Again, of course, whether or not I regard him as a friend, has no bearing on the sexual allegations, nor does it determine whether he might ever have done anything usefu
But he and his lawyers spread extraordinarily silly conspiracy theories, that prevent people from thinking clearly. And \it's not fine with me when people coordinate to spread bullshizz that accomplishes nothing but fugging up people's thinking
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)A lotta shady stuff going on.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You could get your eyelashes singed just be clicking on it.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The "not all rape is real rape" brigade.
It's not OK to have sex with people without their consent, even if you're a liberal icon.
The ones who really make me sick are the ones who try to avoid being drawn on whether or not they think Assange did it by focussing on the fact that he hasn't been convicted, rather than on the evidence of his guilt.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Response to bobduca (Reply #69)
Post removed
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Keep smearing, that's clearly what you are here for, since you were already on the ignore list...
That means I already identified you as someone who clearly has no interest in discussion, and I can see why since all you have are smears.
Where are the charges again surveillance-state apologist? Oh that's right there aren't any.
Cue the hate-filled rofl waffle clique.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Sidestepping the point, pointing at the arguer not the argument. Carry on.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)One woman claimed Assange molested her, then threw a party for him the next night and tweeted that she was having the time of her life, and allowed Assange to continue to sleep in her bed. The other was given a statement that said Assange had sex with her while she was asleep which she has refused to sign to this day, probably because she sent text message(s) and email(s) to other people which said she was NOT asleep. She told her brother she never wanted Assange charged with rape and instead just wanted him to submit to an HIV test. Even the unsigned statement says they were joking with each other during the incident in which the prosecutor said was rape. (2nd prosecutor actually as the first specifically said it WASN'T rape, cancelled the arrest warrant, and dropped the whole investigation). Both women specifically said Assange wasn't violent and they didn't feel threatened by him. One of them authored a blog post on how to get revenge on an ex-lover, then deleted it.
The laws in Sweden work nothing like the laws in the US. There's no right to a grand jury. It's not even up to the victims to decide if it's rape, but instead the prosecutor. The accused are routinely jailed until trial, denied bail, and can be brought all the way to the trial stage with virtually no evidence if the prosecutor so wishes it. There's also no right to a jury trial and all but one of the judges are elected politicians.
So please do talk about the evidence of his guilt, but I'm not sure you want to go there. Believe it or not it even gets better.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
Do you guys even listen to your own arguments?
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Or is abstract ad hominem all you got?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Should no one ever be charged with rape so we avoid authoritarianism? Why should someone accused of rape not be charged with rape and why would it be "authoritarianism" for charges to be filed? Is this just rape or are there other crimes that should not be prosecuted if we like something else someone has done? I have no words for how sick that suggestion is.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)You think someone who is facing rape allegations should not actually be questioned, much less charged? What if he sold drugs, or cheated and defrauded others, or killed someone - are the "authoritarian" authorities allowed to question him then? Are the "authoritarians" allowed to question him ever? Or is it just rape that needs to be ignored?
Your concern *cough* for the cause of rape victims is duly noted.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Their disregard for the human rights of rape victims is unconscionable.
His standing in the sexual assault cases are entirely unrelated to Wikileaks. Wikileaks will continue, regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence in case of the two Swedish women. This is about hero worship, exactly like the people of Steubenville, they are protecting their star quarterback they believe too important to face allegations made by mere women. They are no better that the people who concealed generations of rapists until a video made it impossible to do so any longer.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)carrying water for empire. K&R
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)He's one man, and your hero worship doesn't excuse carrying water for an accused rapist and denying the basic human rights of rape victims. Disgust doesn't begin to explain how I feel about those determined to keep an accused sexual predator from facing the legal accusations against him. Protecting their favorite quarterback from legal proceedings, just as the people of Steubenville did. There is no difference between the two situations. Both think their great men too important. Only the faces change.
There is principal in defending Assange. The fate of Wikileaks has nothing to do with the sexual assault case against Assange. Whether he stays hidden out in the embassy for the rest of his life, or appears in Sweden and is convicted or acquitted, the website continues.
All this shows is the determination of some to make any excuses for a man they consider too important to face rape allegations by mere women. It's repulsive. There is nothing noble about making the world safe for sexual predators. This is exactly how rape culture is perpetrated.
This is the legal record.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think conflating two wholly separate issues will set the cause of rational thought back again... for years.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)...is that they weren't able to concoct a story in time to have Edward Snowden charged with a sex offense.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Naturally it failed utterly and revealed more of their hand than they could afford to show. I had no IDEA of the extent of their creativity and mendacity, now I am left in no doubt at all.
The only stupider stories they came out with were those spat out during the Morales Incident.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Anyone with half a brain knows who they are and why they do what they do.
Their 1% masters want to eliminate all whistleblowers forever, so that there can be no challenge to their agenda of global rule by private commercial interests. They want to privatize everything, so that they do not have to answer to democracy.
Julian spat in their face, and will continue to spit in their face, so they need to keep up the propaganda in order to make sure he remains neutralized. And BTW, they could care less about setting the cause of rape victims back, it is of no consequence to their agenda.
Always remember: Obvious troll is obvious
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)committed a sexual assault or not. But most men I know would never ever want to be accused of this crime. I hope this will end soon. Too many women don't get justice for this criminal act. and women who lie do no service in helping the cause of justice. And if they frame innocent men it messes up the man's life something terrible. will be glad when the truth prevails on this one.
