General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDefending Assange against sexual assault allegations
Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 04:40 PM - Edit history (2)
Has nothing to do with the NSA, "empire," authoritarianism, or one's views of government. Assange's fate is entirely separate from Wikileaks. The information he helped make available to public is still there, and the website continues. Wikileaks is far more than Assange. It is possible for two things to be true: Assange can have made a major contribution to the public through Wikileaks and still be a sexual assailant. The court record shows that he is in fact an accused sexual assailant under Swedish law, and the courts there have issued a warrant for his arrest under allegations of sexual assault.
The International Arrest Warrant for Julian Assange
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
So there is indeed a legal order from Sweden and the EU ordering Assange's arrest on allegations of sexual assault.
That led to an order of extradition, which Assange appealed. The following link is the legal ruling from the UK Supreme Court rejecting Assange's appeal.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
I request, in fact insist, that everyone read the above legal documents before responding to the OP. It's a long document but you can skim through to the parts that deal with the facts of the case, the status of the investigation, and Assange's standing as the target of a Swedish arrest warrant. I will not brook continued disinformation. This is a legal case, therefore the legal record is the most relevant piece of documentation. The linked legal ruling is from the UK Supreme Court in response to Assange's appeal to overturn the extradition order on the group that no charges had been filed--the same argument many here make. The court gives its reasoning for rejecting that argument and shows why Assange is an accused person under Swedish law.
The beginning of the legal ruling deals with the issue of whether the Swedish prosecutor represents a binding legal authority under EU law. The UK Supreme Court ruled it did, and therefore the arrest warrant is valid. The facts of the case begin at number 83 in the linked document. The final ruling is near the end of the document and there the various justices give their reasons for rejecting Assange's appeal. They in fact declare invalid many of the arguments members here have made in defense of Assange.
I see all kinds of blatantly false information spread by DUers in defense of Assange. They insist the victim recanted. False. A victim has been widely shamed: 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 She has been shamed just like the victims in Steubenville were shamed, just as were the young high-school girls gang raped and later shamed on social media before they committed suicide.
People insist no charges have been filed against Assange. This is a technical matter invoked to deceive. As the court record shows, Assange is an accused person under Swedish law, not merely a suspect. The Swedish prosecutor has issued an arrest warrant for Assange. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html He is evading a Swedish court order to appear for final questioning. In the Swedish system, charges are only filed at the very end of an investigation. They do not operate under the same legal rules that the US does. It presenting the excuse of "no charges," people distort the record in order to create a false impression that he is merely a suspect. If there were no Swedish legal proceedings against Assange, there would be no order of extradition. That order is to compel him to comply with a Swedish court order to face the allegations against him.
People argue that Assange is hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in order to avoid being grabbed by the US. Yet the US has far closer relations with the UK than with Sweden. If they wanted to grab him, they could have more easily done so in London. Additionally, if the US were to issue charges after he went to Sweden, Assange could just as easily take refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in Stockholm at that time. The facts simply do not support the idea that Assange is evading anything but allegations of sexual assault.
There is no principal in shielding Assange from prosecution. The fate of Assange in sexual assault proceeding has no bearing on Wikileaks, the NSA, the US military, or any other arm of the US government. The information Assange released remains in the public domain. Defending Assange does not advance anti-authoritarianism or freedom of information. It defends a single man that many have imbued with heroic qualities and think too important to have to face the legal consequences of alleged sexual assault. You can support the actions of Assange at Wikileaks without shielding him from legal proceedings in Sweden. His being able to avoid those charges does not advance freedom. It shields a single man from sexual assault allegations. Make no mistake about it. That is all you are doing by defending Assange. Laws prohibiting rape and sexual assault do not exist solely for men you do not like or respect. Everyone must be held to the same legal standard in the respective country where the assaults occurred.
Defending Assange is no different from the people of Steubenville who protected generations of rapist football players until video evidence made it impossible to do so any longer. Like Assange's defenders, they believed those football players too important. They refused to believe they could actually be rapists. The women must have been lying. Assange is now the favorite quarterback, and defending him is no different from what happened in Steubenville. Here we are witnessing the active propagation of rape culture. Making excuses why someone should not face charges makes it easier for rapists to reoffend. Whether the person you seek to shield is a football player or owner of a website that publishes government secrets, refusing justice to their victims denies the basic human rights of rape victims. It is a morally unconscionable position and part of the reason that so few rapists are punished for their crimes.
Assange has not yet been tried, so he is not a convicted sexual assailant. He like every accused person deserves his day in court. Yet Assange has gone into hiding to avoid facing the court. Only by going to Sweden can he clear his name or face the legal consequences of his actions.
The question for now is what you each of us here on DU is: Are you someone who believes some people too important to face charges of sexual assault? Or do you rape victims deserve to have their allegations heard, and that no one should be above the law, even someone who has made a great contribution to public knowledge like Julian Assange?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)I hope that last bareback "sex" you had was enough to last you for the next 30 years Julian, because you can go fuck yourself from now on.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)He's living in style in the Ecuadorian embassy. I would be surprised if he did not have access to women. Sexual predators always reoffend.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Is that a fugitive can keep offending.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Just making shit up, hunh? Nothing offensive about.
Shouldn't we be saying thank god Assange enjoys sex with real women more than watching porn? Offensive? Yeah. Your words? Yeah.
By the way, it's possible to NOT be a rape apologist and not agree with the UK court's ruling.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)That really isn't the issue. The question is why some think Assange above the law and too important to abide by an arrest warrant.
As for sexual offenders, they repeat their crimes over and over again. The cases in Sweden are not the first in which Assange is alleged to have violated women. It is unlikely to be the last. There are certain facts of criminology you prefer to ignore, but to pretend it's "making shit up' is bullshit.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)for three years here. You assume everyone does not remember all these rulings and events. You conveniently ignore the U.S. extradition issue and the concerns about the Swedish justice system, and the politicization of this case.
And you know well that I was not referring to the fact that sexual offenders repeat.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)The extradition is to Sweden, not the US. You can read the linked documents yourself. There is a huge amount of disinformation going around, which is why I posted the arrest warrant, UK supreme court ruling, and information from the Swedish Prosecutors site in the first few responses to this OP. You actually think the court ruled he was to be extradited to the US? Read the UK Supreme Court ruling. It is very clear that it is extradition to Sweden in honor of an International Arrest Warrant issued by Interpol, which has jurisdiction only in the EU.
How would I know that is not what you were talking about when that was the context of the post you took such exception to?
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 09:19 AM - Edit history (1)
How would you know? I don't understand why you are confused since it has been a major issue for 3 years and you addressed it yourself, although you just brush it off:
It sounds good, but if you have problem with other people's speculations and assumptions, then you shouldn't be surprised people are going to have problems with yours.
Anyway, go read Jim Lane's post #190.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)You have no idea what the legal proceedings were about and rather than admitting that, are now trying to put your shocking Lack of knowledge on the subject on to me. I'm sorry that you lack the confidence in yourself to admit a mistake.
I am not confused. I know the basic facts. You strangely suggest I don't remember "all those rulings," when in fact the legal ruling from the UK Supreme Court is linked above as a primary source. In post 9, I provide a chronology of events from the Swedish prosecutors.
You say Sweden hasn't "guaranteed they won't render him to the US. Why is that more important to you than the human rights of rape victims? What guarantee has Assange made that he will
not reoffend? Since he has not denied the allegations but instead instead he should not be held account for them, it would seem he sees nothing problematic in compelling a woman to have "sex" (of course when not consensual it is not sex but rape) without consent. Yet somehow that doesn't concern you or others here. All that matters is the great man Assange operate without penalty. Who was it below who insisted "Those b...s set him up."? Such a Nobel cause. 
99Forever
(14,524 posts)BainsBane
(57,746 posts)That you think Assange too important to have to obey.
I have to say, you aren't exactly a persuasive advocate. It's pretty funny actually.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)From the Office of the Swedish prosecutor.
Swedish Prosecution Authority has recieved many questions about why the prosecutor did not go to the UK and questioning Assange.
In cases where a suspect is abroad, the prosecutor must consider what investigation measures are possible under Swedish law and international instruments. Moreover, the prosecutor must consider what is required in the specific case to enable the investigation to be conducted in a legally sound and effective way without compromising quality. The prosecutor must also consider how any trial can be conducted if the investigation results in the prosecutor bringing a prosecution and how any sentence can be enforced.
In this matter, the prosecutor’s deliberations resulted in a request for the detention of Julian Assange for the crimes of which he was suspected. Pursuant to the court’s detention order the prosecutor issued a European arrest warrant.
The prosecutor’s assessment is that, for the purpose of the investigation, Mr Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation. Without going into the details about the work of the investigation, it can be mentioned that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation to date. When continuing the investigation there is also a need to be able to carry out supplementary interviews, as required, with Mr Assange and the other persons involved.
Under Swedish law the defendant must be present in person at the trial in cases involving this type of crime. If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange, his personal presence is required in Sweden so that a trial can be held and any sentence enforced. The court’s detention order means that Mr Assange has been detained to ensure this.
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK1/
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)2012-06-14
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed the application from Mr Assange to re-open the appeal. In addition, the Court has ordered that the required period for extradition shall not commence until the 14th day after today.
In accordance with the framework on European arrest warrants, the Court's decision means that Mr Assange will be surrendered to Sweden within 10 days after the 14th day.
Further information from the prosecutor
Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, cannot supply any information regarding the case at the moment, but will give interviews in connection with a detention hearing in Sweden
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Assange-to-be-surrendered-to-Sweden/
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)From the Swedish Prosecutors Office
Events concerning Julian Assange in chronological order
Swedish proceedings
20 August 2010
The duty prosecutor orders the arrest of Julian Assange, suspected of rape and molestation.
21 August 2010
The case is transferred to a prosecutor at City Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm.
25 August 2010
The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.
27 August 2010
Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.
1 September 2010
Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.
September 2010
The investigation is underway.
September 2010
The arrest of Julian Assange is ordered.
18 November 2010
Marianne Ny orders the arrest of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion. This measure is taken as it has been impossible to interview him during the investigation.
Stockholm District Court takes a decision to order the arrest of Julian Assange in accordance with the Prosecutor's request.
In order to execute this decision, the Prosecutor takes a decision to issue an international warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange, a European Arrest Warrant.
22 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the issue of the District Court arrest warrant to Svea Court of Appeal.
24 November 2010
Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.
The international request and the European Arrest Warrant are confirmed in accordance with the decision of the District Court.
30 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the arrest warrant issued by Svea Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.
2 December 2010
The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands.
On the request of the British police, additional information is added to the European Arrest Warrant concerning the maximum penalty in Sweden for the crimes of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
British proceedings
7 december 2010
Julian Assange is arrested by British police.
16 December 2010
At a hearing on detention at Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the Court decides that Julian Assange should be granted bail.
7-8 February 2011
Hearing in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
24 February 2011
The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court makes a decision to grant the request for surrender of Mr. Julian Assange to Sweden.
March 2011
Mr Assange appeals the court's decision.
12-13 July 2011
Hearing in High Court in London concerning surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.
2 November 2011
The High Court dismisses the appeal by Mr. Julian Assange against his extradition to Sweden.
5 December 2011
The Court grants Mr. Assange the right, within 2 weeks, to request leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
16 December 2011
The Supreme Court grants Mr. Assange leave to appeal. The Court will sit on 1 and 2 February 2012.
1-2 February 2012
Hearing in the Supreme Court of Great Britain concerning whether a prosecutor can be considered to have the legal authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant.
30 May 2012
The Supreme Court decides to uphold and grant the request to surrender Julian Assange to Sweden. The Court grants the defence 14 days to make an application to re-open the appeal.
12 June 2012
Assange requests the Supreme Court appeal to be re-opened.
14 June 2012
The Supreme Court dismisses the application to re-open the appeal. The Court also orders that the period for extradition shall not begin for 14 days.
19 june 2012
Mr Assange seeks political asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
16 august 2012
Ecuador grants Assange asylum.
http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Why not? What about his alleged victims? They don't matter?
randome
(34,845 posts)So is the U.K. government.
And the U.K. appeals process.
And Interpol.
And the government of Sweden.
And Assange's own country, Australia, which decided not to intervene.
It's the biggest fucking conspiracy EVER!!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
treestar
(82,383 posts)The JFK conspiracies are simple criminal plots in comparison!
And the USA too - in fact that is the ringleader! 
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Women never count. Assange is too important for trivialities like consent.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)It's scary. They'll make up any story to excuse him.
Obvious victim-bashing is obvious. The misogynist undertones are also obvious.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Steubenville 2.0
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)BainsBane
(57,746 posts)that Assange is evading an international arrest aware for sexual assault on two women? Wow. I'm shocked. I would have never guessed. 
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Hopefully you don't get a hidden post in this thread too.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Yes, equal rights is "repulsive" to some. It does show how threatened some are by simple facts. God forbid I suggest Julian Assange should abide by the law and that his victims are human beings. They are only women. The horror of suggesting they too have rights.
Alert away. It doesn't change the fact that the the documentation and facts support exactly what I'm saying. But hey, he's the star quarterback. That's all that counts. I'm just a mouthy woman insisting an accused rapist be held to justice. Clearly that's an outrage to some.
When you have no facts, shut up the feminist. Censor the speech you're afraid of. Then you don't have to face the ignominity of being confronted with primary documents proving the Assange defenders wrong.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)21,100 posts in fifteen months would indicate otherwise.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)by sending SOP alerts to make people think I'm a caver too.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Have you ever been a caver?
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)What you tried is widely known.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I didn't try anything. Facts are facts.
Hows that MIRT gig going?
pintobean
(18,101 posts)nt
snooper2
(30,151 posts)We should probably try to focus on our own problems here in the U.S.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)because it is Americans apologizing for Assange and shaming his victims. It is Americans referring to his victims as female dogs, and insisting he need not face justice. This is an active propagation of rape culture that affects me, the wives and daughters of you and other DUers, and male rape victims as well. This is how and why rapists go unpunished and destroy the lives of women, girls, boys, and men. It is the rape apology and victim shaming that endangers the lives of victims of sexual assault throughout this nation by guaranteeing their rapists go unpunished. How don't you see that? Surely you have women in your life you care about?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Stubenville, that's a whole nother' story-
It's just a small bubble of folks on a couple web forums that are apologizing for his ass.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)It's that people feel justified in excusing men they admire from having to face rape allegations. They blame the victim, call them liars, and defend the accused rapist. Whether it's Assange, Steubenville, the high-school guys who gang rape young girls, or someone in your hometown--men and women alike line up to defend them and smear the victim. That's what this is about. Substitute Assange's name for the Steubenville guys or any other rapist and the story is exactly the same. Only the names change.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Every Michael Jackson thread is like that.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Awesome thread, and a very cogent post here. We DO have an interest in seeing justice done.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)take a man I admire, let's say my father. I've known him for a number of years and he seems like a really great guy. Now suddenly suppose my father is accused of rape. What am I gonna think? Am I gonna think "oh crap, my father is a rapist" or am I far more likely to think "what the hell?, his accuser MUST be lying"
So you can expect family to blame the alleged victim. That's what families generally do - they defend their own, especially if "their own" has been decent to them.
Now step away from family. What about a pastor or a teacher? Teachers you don't know as well. My chemistry teacher, for example, was accused of getting some students drunk and making passes at them (and he was allowed to sneak out of town and become a college prof). I had two years of classes with him. So I interacted with him perhaps an hour a day during the school year for two years.
Still, you think you know him a little bit. He's pretty friendly and easygoing and teaches a subject you like. Why wouldn't you take HIS side over the side of somebody you don't know as well? How do you KNOW that some girl (or guys in this case), just didn't get bad grades in chemistry or maybe got detention for disrupting class and this is their way of getting revenge? Certainly I went to school with some kids that I wouldn't trust any further than I could throw them.
One trouble, though, is power. I tried to explain this to my sister. She was talking about some guy that I knew, and she said something like "he's a pretty nice guy" and I said "Of course, he is nice - to YOU. You are a cute girl and he wants you to like him. So he pretends to be nice. Whereas with me, he shows his true colors."
Mr. star quarterback maybe plays that game too. He is respectful to teachers and coaches and principals, and perhaps other adults, because they have power over him. He needs their approval. Ah, but to those below him in status?
Still, it is easy to see how an athlete can get a good reputation that way. Further, people WANT to believe that he is an all American boy, a good kid, not some thug. He also has family, and friends (and family of friends) whose first instinct will be - defend our family, defend our friend.
Really though, what do you expect them to do? Throw their sons under a bus?
xulamaude
(847 posts)there was a serial rapist hunting in the area I grew up. The police sketch resembled my brother. I began paying very close attention to his movements.
It would not have surprised me at all if he had been called in for questioning and I would have done anything I could do to assist the authorities if they had.
I didn't care at all that he was my only sibling.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)But there's clearly not going to be any meaningful discussion about the analogy inconguencies here.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)"bat signal" 
xulamaude
(847 posts)get it?! "BATS" lol huh huh huh snort
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Please post it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)performed did not constitute sexual assault in the UK. He was wrong.
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
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)I also included the text and link in the OP. Thanks very much for pointing me to the document.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)his actual legal argument. Assange didn't claim innocence to the British courts. He claimed that the acts he engaged in ... described in the allegations of the warrant...are not sexual assault under the laws of the UK.
That is why his supporters never ever refer to the Belmarsh decision.... which you have quoted extensively from. It's too disgusting a defense.
xulamaude
(847 posts)At best Assange is a disgusting person. At worst he's a rapist.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)same arguments.
xulamaude
(847 posts)is a legal adult!! Or something... 
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Assange's arguments to the British courts were procedural not on the merits. He was arguing that even if all the allegations were true facts that it would not constitute crimes in the UK. His position on the merits of the case were not argued and no evidence was given one way or the other.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Its simply wasn't argued. I suggest that you review Mr Assange's sworn deposition to find out why.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)It was a hearing not a trial. There were no witnesses. I am not Assange's lawyer and unlike you who PRETENDS to be an internet expert in UK and Swedish law, I am not privy to the strategies of Assange's legal team.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)witnesses--the State called witnesses, the Swedish reps called witnesses.
What?? You think the judge sat there, talking to an empty room?
FFS---just buckle down and read the decision!!!
former9thward
(33,424 posts)There were NO witnesses on the merits of the case and there was NO evidence given. The four witnesses were all supposed experts in the procedure of Swedish law and the judge did not put much weight in any of their testimony no matter what side they were on. I have read the decision. I think you have just read the parts you liked.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)merits. Assange didn't claim innocence...he claimed it was the CIA.
treestar
(82,383 posts)claiming they are made up just to get him to Sweden for extradition to the US. Even he doesn't agree with that.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What I think of Assange's defenders on this matter will depend a lot on how they respond to those arguments.
(And, incidentally, I think wikileaks is one of the most important websites operating today.)
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Ignore the evidence, make jokes, and alert to hide the truth.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts) 
countryjake
(8,554 posts)Randomly labeling people as rape apologists as you have done is quite the winning argument. Depending on what exactly it is that you are attempting to achieve.
I do not alert, make jokes, or ignore any evidence, yet I do feel insulted by some of the smear tactics I've seen used here.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)so I didn't mention you. You are free to read the documents linked in this thread and prove me wrong. I welcome it.
I have used no smear tactics. I have pointed that a position that seeks to put some people above the law and imagine that someone people admire should not be subject to legal justice for sexual assault is one that disrespects the basic human rights of victims. In seeking to shield some from prosecution, it makes a mockery of laws prohibiting rape. It is the same as Steubenville. Those people also believed the football players innocent, the women to be liars, the the players too important to face legal prosecution. That is what people here are arguing. Only the faces change.
You tell me how it's possible to hold Assange or anyone else above the law, shield him from prosecution, refer to his victims as "b....s who set him up" and stooges of the MIC and not be engaged in rape apology and victim blaming? That is what those actions are. They are textbook examples of it, identical to every other case of a high profile rape defendant. People have their reasons for why they believe what they are doing is justified, but it doesn't change the fact that they are arguing that an accused sexual assailant with a valid arrest warrant should not have to face justice.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)and I mean slamming right into the sham of the system called "justice" in this country, I could give you many instances where someone deemed a "perpetrator" was railroaded into a life behind bars, without any regard whatsoever to their human rights. I am NOT a rape apologist, by any stretch of the imagination, yet I could give you instances of many cases of injustice perpetrated by courts of law in this nation, mistakenly or deliberately accusing a defendant of rape, precisely to deny a man his freedom and in certain cases, his very life.
I am not so insensitive as to be blind to the fact that where the government of the USA is concerned, justice means different things for certain elements of our population, depending upon where one sits on the totem of class, color of their skin, sexual orientation, or political persuasion. I think that it is disingenuous to speak of the victims of Steubenville in their fight to be heard and win justice in the same breath as the accusations against Assange.
One need only deliberately fuck with that high and mighty monolith of our government to see how rapidly justice's hammer will come down on you.
I've already read most of the documents that have been released in the Wikileaks case and have kept up with it since it began, noting the torturous persecution (prosecution?), brands of treason, and asylum-seeking of all those accused of interfering with the business-as-usual of the world's imperialist power.
I do not admire Julian Assange, but I wouldn't want him to end up as yet another political prisoner, either, molding away within this country's prison system. And I only feel pity for any woman who thinks that calling a cop will bring them justice.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Assange will go to prison, if he goes to prison, in Sweden, after being tried for rape and sexual assault, or in the UK for the offence of absconding on bail. Neither is a political offence, as much as some fervent admirers of Wikileaks may wish them to be.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)is the only way you'll discuss this?
That there have been suggestions of ignoring the political asylum guarantee in the United Kingdom, agitating to storm the Ecuadorian embassy, for the offense of absconding on bail, doesn't seem relevant to you?
That Assange was labeled as a "terrorist" by higher-ups in this nation (coming from both sides of the aisle, I might add), before he ever was dubbed "sex offender", doesn't make you scratch your head and go, "hmmmm..."?
A simplistic view of this entire conundrum of Assange, requiring that objective observers completely ignore the fact that serious, abhorrent war crimes have been exposed, makes for very interesting forum posts and blog entries. Indeed.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)It is for Assange alone. Whether Assange faces legal proceedings for rape has no effect on Wikileaks and its content. The site is currently running without him. He is one man, an accused sexual assailant with a valid arrest warrant based on probably cause. The inability of some to distinguish policy and principal from an individual or to recognize that people are complicated has led to some bizarre notions. Assange "was dubbed" a terrorist. This is not an undergraduate exercise in post-structuralism. What someone calls him is irrelevant. The fact is he is evading a valid arrest warrant for rape. Full stop. His alleged victims are human beings whose rights allow them to seek justice for the crimes against them. The rest is a function of the inability of far too many to separate wikileaks and freedom of information from one man. Why on earth should exposing war crimes give him a pass on his own alleged crimes of sexual assault? Is your contention that if someone does something you admire they can assault women without consent whenever they feel like it? The fact is his actions at Wikileaks and the sexual assault allegations are separate. Making excuses for him only serves to protect an accused rapist and denies the basic human rights of his victims. I find that horrendously offensive. I believe that as a human being, my rights matter just as much as anyone else. You have put Assange above the rights of the women he is accused of assaulting. No man should be above the law, whether football players in Steubenville or Julian Assange. If the rights of rape victims are to matter at all, no one should be able to conceal themselves from prosecution because some people think him too important.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)greatest defenders if Bush was still in office.
They are smart enough to pretend they rely on evidence, and deny that selective persecution/prosecution bastardizes the justice system when it is used to punish anyone who dares challenge the government abuse of power.
They have already convicted him. Any premise of objectivity is a charade.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Just exactly who do you think you are? I don't give much of a damn what you think you will or won't brook. If you have primary source information about Assange, let's hear it. If you don't, well, you get a star for puffing yourself up so much.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)and in several responses I posted to the OP. I provided the primary source information. Read it. It is linked directly before the text you take such objection to. How hard is that to miss? Then look at my subsequent responses with links and text from the Swedish prosecutor's office. It's obvious by just glancing. Good lord.
Who am I, a person who cares about evidence and the truth and has had enough disinformation.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I had a post alerted on awhile back...I think it was called "This is how a lie is born", or words to that effect. I'm not going to level that same accusation now, but it's important that you understand once you willfully say something you know to be untrue in an attempt to harm someone's character (not mine, but another poster's), you're not to be taken at your word. By a margin of 5 to 1, the jury agreed, because it was very clear that this was the case, since the post and your words were adjacent to one another. I can dig up a link if you want, but my purpose here is to exclaim surprise at your claim of caring about the truth. Thank you.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)You are reaching for excuses because the evidence clearly proves everything Assange's defenders have said is false. Ad hominum attacks hardly strengthen your case.
I have said nothing untrue, period. If you have evidence that anything I have said is untrue, provide it.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And as I mentioned, I can provide a link to that other thread I referenced, but I won't do that unless you insist.
By the way, how does "the evidence" prove that everything Assange's defenders has said is wrong? I'd invite you to read my response to Msanthrope if you'd like, and would be very interested in this evidence and the proof it provides.
pnwmom
(110,253 posts)It's a matter of fact that Assange does not dispute the details of what he did; and that Swedish law doesn't allow them to charge him until they interview him in Sweden.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)if you haven't read the Belmarsh decision then you really are unacquainted with the legal facts of the case...
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
I'd love to debate you on this one..... once you read one of the primary documents.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)How surprising.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)it is pretty unsurprising that there is no answer.....
To repeat....the primary legal argument of Mr Assange against extradition was not that he was innocent of the acts alleged in the warrant.... but that the acts did not constitute sexual offences under UK law and therefore he could not be extradited.
There it is in a primary document...original source material... and no answer to it.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I don't have the luxury of sitting around all day and billing $150 an hour for it. You'll have your answer in due course. Understood?
xulamaude
(847 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Just type the words "Sorry, I was wrong. My bad." It'll only take a few seconds and then you can back on with your busy busy day.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm on 24 of 28, by the way, and I'm ignoring your fan club's advice that I don't read anything and just apologize, like some vacuous nitwit. Some reading, some day-job work, some thinking about it, some typing, and you'll have your reply. Thanks.
xulamaude
(847 posts)Priorities, man, priorities...
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)First, thanks for the link. It really was interesting reading. Next, let me dispel any notion that I'm going to argue legal points of European law with you. You're an attorney, and I'm not. Moreover, I know less about Sweden's and the UK's legal system than I know about the US system. But I did read every word of the document, and I read it for understanding. Here's how I see it: Chief Magistrate Riddle made what appears to this layman to be a good case to extradite Assange to Sweden. He found holes in the logic of the defense witnesses who traveled to the UK to testify. One was repeating hearsay, another apparently lied (if the meaning of prevarication hasn't changed since I last looked), and all brought up points that Riddle says are beyond his purview, and therefore, he didn't consider those points. There was a lot of discussion about whether the prosecutor's intent was to interrogate Assange or prosecute him. The magistrate found that the prosecutor, in his view, was clear that her intent was to prosecute Assange. So again, it looks like the magistrate made a solid case for Assange's extradition to Sweden, absent some mistake that I'm not trained enough to spot.
A question for you at this point: if you agree with me that it looks like the magistrate made a good case that Assange should be extradited, I'd like to lean on your legal knowledge and ask you to answer this: if he'd had a mind to, could the magistrate have come up with just the opposite finding, without raising eyebrows in the parts of the legal community that look at such decisions? It's a leading question, but hopefully a compelling one. It looks to me like Riddle could have answered in the negative, and could have come up with decent backing for that point of view. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that.
Things that bothered me in the document: rape trials are held in secret in Sweden, at least most of the time, as decided by the court that has jurisdiction. One of the victims was apparently scrubbing her social media posts about being "half-asleep" (half-aslessp vs. fully asleep turns out to be important in these proceedings, according to the finding) and about wanting revenge. I'll state a couple of things plainly here, so that there's no misunderstanding: I don't get to make European law. I don't get to adjudicate whether the law is applied fairly between one EU member and another. I do get to decide what I don't like about a case, and these two items both bothered me. I understand the reasoning behind the behind-closed-doors trial, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I'm not sure I completely disagree either. I'm uneasy on that point. If Julian Assange raped someone, he needs to be judicially punished. If he didn't, if the sex was consensual, that's a completely different story. I'm a little mystified as to why he couldn't have been interviewed over a videoconference. There's no EU law prohibiting such a thing, and the Swedish prosecutor's refusal to conduct this remotely only makes sense when you consider that they definitely intend to prosecute. Still, isn't there such a thing as being convicted in absentia, and if so, wouldn't that make his host embassy a little less eager to give him shelter?
Summary: from my layman's point of view, the British magistrate had his ducks in a row.
Next: the extra-judicial, and this is the part you were waiting for. I have absolutely no confidence that this attempted prosecution of Assange isn't politically-related, and of course, none of that would show up in a finding of fact document. I'm not at all comfortable with the ties one of these women apparently had to the CIA. I'm not comfortable with the notion that Assange was warned of "sex traps" before this happened. The items that bother me about this case won't be subject to court proceedings. My suspicions may be well-founded, or they may be groundless, but this wouldn't come out in a court proceeding. Nothing that the good magistrate said in making his decision indicates that the US isn't behind this attempted prosecution, which stands to reason, as I'm sure Mr Riddle wouldn't be privy to such information. This is the point at which you or others are free to sling CT labels at me. Whatever it takes--I don't trust that my government is truthful, and there's plenty of evidence to back that up.
Finally, I'll point out that when I made my original post, responding to the OP, I mentioned primary sources. This document may count as a primary source in legalese, or it may not, I have no idea. But when I told BB that if she had any primary-sourced information, I meant directly from Assange or from the victims. I meant to say that if she didn't have any more information than the rest of us have, it's kind of ridiculous to talk about how you don't intend to brook any argument, etc. Honest people can argue about what they think of Assange and of his accusers. But claiming some sort of undefined and exclusive knowledge, and therefore stating you won't be listening to any opposing points of view, is a non-starter with me, and it always will be. I initially addressed you by reminding you of something you're already aware of: you're acerbic. But so far as I'm aware, you're also an honest person, and I appreciate that, if only academically.
Thanks.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)In paragraph one--yes. Assange's Swedish attorney lied. The Belmarsh court found that Assange had been briefed by attorney, and was aware of the fact that he was going to be subject to a blood test and arrest at the meeting scheduled with the prosecutor. Assange left Sweden the next day.
Paragraph 2--No. The only way that Riddle could have found that Assange should not go back to Sweden was to agree with the spurious argument that the acts alleged in the warrant were not sexual assault in any reasonable context.
Paragraph 3--He can't be 'interviewed' on videoconference because he isn't going to be 'interviewed' as we use that term legally. He's going to be arrested, and Sweden has no jurisdictional authority to conduct that process in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. That's the legal reason. The other reason is that fugitives don't dictate justice, which is what I tell fugitive clients who earn a bench warrant for failure to appear. You noted that Riddle caught Assange's attorney in a "prevarication." Understand that this was collusion by attorney and client and a willful flee. I would be disbarred for such an action. And my client would not be able to 'negotiate' the terms of justice at any point. This is how fugitives are treated, world over.
Paragraph 4--No woman had any ties to the CIA. That was a lie, published by a Wikileaks employee, Israel Shamir. Read downthread for that why that shitbag of a Holocaust denier should not be believed under any circumstances. Seriously--Alex Jones is a more credible source.
As for the US being behind the prosecution---well, why would we let him run to the UK then? I'm not going to dismiss you with "CT" but it seems like the longest and most incompetent black-bag operation, EVER, if this is CIA.
I think Occam's Razor applies. Julian Assange is, personally, a narcissistic shit-bag who has lots of unprotected sex. I mean, four kids with four different women indicate to me that Mr. Assange really, really doesn't like condoms (that comes from a leaked police document.) And his personal profile and stalking of a 19 year old is creepy as hell. Read the links---
http://gawker.com/5757325/julian-assange-has-at-least-four-love-children
I think it's possible to run Wikileaks, and be a rapist. Shit....look at Roman Polanski. It's possible to make great movies, and still be a rapist. I think that the actions described in the warrant are consistent with a narcissistic asshole who has gotten away with assault a few too many times. Enough times, that he actually thinks it isn't assault.
Truly--I think Assange is a rapist because he is acting like one, and the allegations seem credible to me.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You appear for all the world to know your stuff, and I'm not walking into that particular shredder by choice. Thanks especially, by the way, for your paragraph 2 response--I want to turn that one over in my head for awhile.
As an aside, the taunting from this morning really didn't need to happen. I don't have the timestamps in front of me, but I looked at them earlier, and you responded to me after I left home this morning, took my daughter to school, then drove to work and did my start-of-day stuff. Only then did I see that you had responded, that one of your hangers-on responded to you, and you responded back to him, both of you marvelling at how I had run from my 28-page reading assignment given to my by an attorney who wanted to embarrass me, and both of you doing this roughly 30 minutes after I was given my 28-page legal reading assignment. That was ridiculous, and it was petty. Request: give me a reasonable chance next time around.
As I mentioned to someone else, you and I may not get on very well on the rare occasions where we do interact, but I respect your obvious intelligence. The OP who claims that this document provides "proof" against everything Assange supporters claim either hasn't read the document, or came to a very different understanding than I did. The rest of the posters who responded to this little section of the thread are nothing more than a collection of DU "This is Your Locked Post Life" people I've tangled with for one reason or another. You actually make me think, make me mind my P's and Q's, and that can only be a good thing in the end.
Thanks, and I hope you have a good evening.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I'm not entirely convinced that the case against him isn't primarily driven by political pressure, but this is very well argued.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Sweden as a country has struggled over the last 15 years to address the fact that they have a fairly low rate of prosecution for rape. Some of this was due to Swedish law, some due to prosecutorial stance, some due to police procedure and attitudes towards rape victims.
There's a reason that Julian Assange called Sweden "The Saudi Arabia of feminism" though.... this is a problem that Swedish society has decided to fix, and there have been legislators and societal changes in Sweden that reflect changing attitudes about rape.
One thing that's a bit different about Sweden too, is that rape cases are very strictly controlled as to privacy of both the accused and victim.
In that context I have no doubt the head prosecutor...when they took over the case felt enormous political pressure to thoroughly investigate such a public case. But I don't think that political pressure Was because Julian Assange is Julian Assange.... It was because Julian Assange is a high-profile foreign man accused of a crime that is heinous. I think the political pressure is fungible.... There would have been political pressure regarding any high profile incident.
This is a red ball.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Regarding paragraph 3, you say he can't be interviewed by teleconference. I think that is a procedural thing and not legislated and I think that could happen. However, once the charges are filed after said interview, following procedure, I personally believe Ecuador would have the right to, by treaty, call jurisdiction (OK maybe they make Assange a citizen).
Think about it this way. The USA reserves the right to try its citizens who commit crimes abroad, whatever the crime may be, so we'll bring the citizen back, try them here, and they serve time here for crimes they commit abroad if found guilty.
So my angle is simply that Sweden is taking this procedural position because they want to reserve the right to charge the attacker on their soil, in their custody, so no bullshit procedural crap gets pulled, no trickery. I think if I'm understanding it right this is a very wise way to go about it.
I can't find Ecuador-Sweden extradition treaties so I don't know what rights either have given or reserved for one another so I don't know if my line of thinking is correct and I trust your opinion the most on the matter.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)If I'm reading the decision correctly and I believe that I am... Interview in this context is not an interview that we would talk about in a common law system. It is not merely police inquiry.
Interview in this context is incident to arrest... In other words if it's gone this far in the process in Sweden you are getting arrested. Take a look at the part in the decision with the judge speaks of Mr Hurtig's testimony that he advised Assange that the scheduled interview would involve a blood test and arrest.
In America I would never advise a client to go to an interview with the police.... either they have enough to arrest you or they don't. The process that's been described to me both in Swedish newspapers and in this decision indicates that the interview is more like surrendering yourself for arrest than police inquiry.
I think once Assange's lawyer explained that to him he got on a plane.
So to answer your question instead of thinking about it as an interview and then a possible arrest, it seems that in the Swedish system it is an arrest and the interview is incident to the due process of that arrest. Its not bifurcated and since they don't have the jurisdiction to arrest they don't really have the jurisdiction to interview.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I am too, but without the quotes. I really should have taken your $500.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)rather than engaging in the evidence of the case. It seems clear are choosing to rely on attacks rather than engaging in substance because the evidentiary record doesn't support your version of events.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Hostility is a bad enough. Hostility with a big old sprinkling of ignorance is much, much worse.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)We don't get along all that well, but I respect her. She has a very sharp mind. The hangers-on set up camp near her posts, because she's more capable of conveying her point. Incidentally, this will be the last time in my life I deign to respond to a post containing the phrase "...big old sprinkling of ignorance".
Number23
(24,544 posts)And if calling someone "acerbic" and writing to them in such a superior, condescending and nasty tone is how you show respect, then it's a good thing your respect is not something that many here are looking for.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Do what you need to do.
Number23
(24,544 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)
Cha
(318,746 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I've never understood the people who can't address another poster directly. Now, why don't you go ahead and tell me more about my "hero", and how he is all that I know. I'll be waiting. As I've mentioned a few times, I have actual respect for Msanthrope. For those too timid to address me, and for those who glom onto Msanthrope's posts to me without any original thoughts of their own brought to the fore....well, not so much.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)BainsBane
(57,746 posts)A basic principle. If only men we don't admire are held legally accountable, then the world is made safe for rapists to proceed with impunity.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)for the good of humanity. Enough is enough!
riqster
(13,986 posts)Rape is often called a "sex crime", but it isn't. It is a way of subjugating the victim, asserting power over the victim, by using a sexual organ or a sex act.
But it isn't about sex. It's about power. So it should not be surprising when perpetrators are those who seek powerful and/or influential positions.
Nine
(1,741 posts)Are people still saying that, or has that one thankfully died out?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)An anonymous group claiming to be “Wikileaks insiders” uploaded a new site full of “revelations” about Assange’s past and present, claiming he lives in luxury in South Africa on donated funds – though he appears almost daily in Swedish media and police reports. Another ex-apostle is the Icelander politician Birgitta Jonsdottir, who is misrepresented as a “Wikileaks spokesperson”. She called on Assange “to step down” and leave Wikileaks to drift without his guidance – as if WikiLeaks is somehow separate from Assange. The pseudo-progressive organization Reporters Sans Frontières attacked Assange for endangering the lives of innocent American secret agents in Afghanistan. Despite its ‘leftist’ terminology, RSF is a private organization drawing funds from US government sources aiming to destabilize Cuba. It is connected to Cuban émigrés in Miami. Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a “leftist”. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here. Note that Ardin was deported from Cuba for subversive activities. In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter. Wikipedia quotes Hebe de Bonafini, president of the Argentine Madres de Plaza de Mayo as saying that “the so-called Ladies in White defend the terrorism of the United States.”
...
The second accuser, Sofia Wilen, 26, is Anna’ friend. Here is a video of an Assange press conference where one can see the girls together. Those present at the conference marveled at her groupie-like behavior. Though rock stars are used to girls dying to have sex with them, it is much less common in the harsh field of political journalism. Sofia worked hard to bed Assange, according to her own confession; she was also the first to complain to police. She is little known and her motives are vague. Why might a young woman (who shares her life with American artist Seth Benson) pursue such a sordid political adventure?
The brilliant Israeli writer Gilad Atzmon describes, in his funny novel My One and Only Love, how the secret services employ young ladies for honey-traps. Is this the case here? Perhaps it is nothing more than a case of gold digging. New legislation, in Sweden and all over Europe, has made men extremely vulnerable to extortion scams of this sort. A young Swedish woman, 26 (her name withheld) succeeded in winning over a million dollars during the course of one vacation in Greece, as reported by the Daily Telegraph. She complained of being raped. Four men were arrested, their names disclosed, and their jobs jeopardized. She went back home a millionaire, her sacred identity safely preserved. Her success begs imitation: according to an EU report, Sweden has twenty times more rape complaints than were generated by the hot-blooded Italians. Most are dismissed right away, and justly so.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/09/14/assange-beseiged/
In the memorable words of Marion Barry, former Mayor of the District of Columbia, "The b--tch set me up".
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BainsBane
(57,746 posts)The female dogs, not even human, in your choice of words, set him up. That really says it all. Women are subhuman animals unfit to wage charges against superior men like Assange. Why should he worry about a little thing like consent anyway? He's too important. They are only female dogs, right?
Now where have I heard that before? Let's see: everywhere a man has been accused of rape. Nothing new here.
No evidence. Just victim blaming.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)The mindless drones will swarm to defend the King.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)has been debunked, thoroughly.
Jeebus...even Al Jazeera caught on to who Israel Shamir really is....
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129410312450511.html&sa=U&ei=CYmoUpXTKqbSsAS91YC4Aw&ved=0CBMQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHVHB76s8jCsXyau0z7Fd2Pd-p9Rw
Dash87
(3,220 posts)More crap from the ADF (Assange Defense Forces). He could cause California to break off and sink into the ocean, and the Assange Defense Forces would claim that Californians were all suicidal after all.
So those 'gold-digging promiscuous' women wanted to sleep with Assange? Cool story bro - that has nothing to do with the charges. The author should be embarrassed of his hackish word-salad.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Dash87
(3,220 posts)Wikileaks used to be good before everyone knew about it. Apparently, I missed the part of their mission where Assange was their deity and they should make crap up to defend him at all costs.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously, I wonder about this board sometimes...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)along with a misogynist slur.
And a DU jury found that just keen and peachy.
Congratulations on finding a welcoming audience for your misogyny here.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)got texts that morning telling them to not go into work.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4672073
that is who is currently being used as a source......
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Jury voted 2-4 that posting the name of a rape victim is perfecftly fine, and that calling her a bitch is also perfectly fine.
People can deny that misogyny is rampant here, but . . .
xulamaude
(847 posts)then why did she report her assault to the police??? It's her fault - she should have known this would happen.
Yeah, no such thing as rape culture...
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in its tolerance of that stuff than it is atypical.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And early on I saw those sites being used as a defense of Assange.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)It names the alleged victims and is written by an antisemitic holocaust denier.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with naming rape victims are all acceptable under DU community standards.
But, if someone calls him a troll, that will be outside of DU community standards.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)And I have found that unless the word is directed towards a DU'er it probably won't be hidden. I am betting if it was alerted for the source it would have been hidden.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)We have some real misogynist assholes at this site.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts) just DU google and you will see her name over and over.geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)quarterback for certain fanpeople.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)I am done with this thread not going to get caught up with all the namecalling.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)BainsBane
(57,746 posts)by saying the "b set me up." It was not simply the use of the word. But your point is accurate. Many jurors see sexism, even in its most vulgar manifestations, as acceptable while they do not feel that way about anti-semitism.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Either way, I think it should have been hidden.
Cha
(318,746 posts)"cave dweller"?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Why Sweden?
If the idea was for the US to entrap Assange, why do it in Sweden? We only have an "ok" relationship with Sweden. On the other hand, Assange was living in the UK at the time. They are our closest ally. They'd have happily helped with the set-up and then extradited Assange with a gift bow stuck to his head. If the victim is lying, there's no particular reason the victim has to be in Sweden to lie.
Instead, you are claiming we set up Assange in a country where we do not have as good a relationship and have much, much less resources in order to trap Assange with an act that isn't a crime in the US or UK.
That is a really, really stupid argument.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Right.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)War is Peace.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that what he did was not a crime in the UK.
Absent that, I would say that I could understand your position even if I didn't agree.
But with his own statements in his defense outlining that he did exactly that of which he is accused I don't think that leaves much room for your argument.
Bainbane's argument about football players and/or the preferred person on your team whatever that team might be (sports, political, etc) is right on and why I have called for the FBI to get involved in such rape cases here in the US.
The right answer is for this person to stand trial in Sweden and let the guilt or innocence be ascertained. I'd even be happy if the Ecuadorian government allowed a Swedish proceeding to take place in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)interpretation of those facts. He still forced a woman to engage in a sex act against her will.
Marr
(20,317 posts)defend the NSA and Obama's domestic spying programs?
You're not posting in a vacuum, you know.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)allegations ? Keep in mind that Assange's legal argument was not innocence...it was that theacts he engaged in were not considered sexual offences under UK law.
Have you read the Belmarsh decision? Cite what you find flimsy.
Marr
(20,317 posts)This subject of this thread is that the charges against Assange have nothing to do with any of that. I find that claim deeply unconvincing, as the people who most dutifully promote those charges are the same small collection of individuals who stand up to defend the Obama Administration's spying programs.
The validity of the charges has been discussed here at length a thousand times. My point is that I find it laughably unconvincing for a regular defender of the NSA to get to gather the same old crew of defenders to shout that the charges against Assange have nothing to do with government. You could only take this sentiment seriously if you had never been to this site before.
It's ridiculous.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and then reading Mr Assange's legal defense to those acts.... not that he did not commit them but that those acts did not rise to the level of sexual offense in the United Kingdom.
Otherwise I really don't understand your post... Are you suggesting that someone in the NSA used a time machine to go back nearly three years before the NSA scandals and plant false rape charges against a person who had only peripheral influence on them????
Marr
(20,317 posts)You're just attacking someone you see as a political enemy, as are many of the people who promote the accusations. If this same case were leveled at someone you considered a political ally, I expect you'd find it ridiculously suspect and unconvincing.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and his behavior is consistent with one.
Marr
(20,317 posts)it allows the wielder to make appraisals over the internet.
That's fascinating.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)How about experience defending them?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is fallacious to attempt to connect them.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I too have been accused of that simply because I discuss the facts (for instance, I think spying on other countries is uncontroversial and all countries do it; that doesn't mean I support it).
msanthrope is a legal junkie, she knows her shit when it comes to reading the merits of a given case. Assange admitted that he "consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge."
If you think "consummating unprotected sexual intercourse with her without the knowledge of the other person" isn't abuse, then you may argue why you think that is the case. Otherwise that is a fact of this case and it cannot be dismissed by petty "you are an NSA defender" rhetoric.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I don't think there's anything flimsy about the Belmarsh decision, however it didn't address the evidence and there's plenty that's flimsy about it. This is further complicated by the fact that the prosecution isn't cooperating with Assange's defense and isn't releasing the evidence they have against him other than to show some of it to his lawyer without providing copies. His lawyer has found a number of problems with their evidence, which the prosecution is already aware, yet still continues to press for his arrest.
Remember that the first prosecutor that investigated these complaints cancelled the arrest warrant, dropped the rape investigation, and even went so far as to say no rape occurred. What is puzzling is why the investigation was reopened, especially when the charges made have been directly contradicted by the electronic communications of the listed victims themselves.
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Seriously you have the Belmarsh decision in front of you. tell us what's wrong with it.
F.y.i actual innocence is a ground for non extradition. You might want to read the decision and the references to Mr Assange's sworn deposition as to why precisely that was not argued by the defense.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)One of the women has specifically said she is not making rape accusations against Assange and neither is anyone, including the prosecution, claiming otherwise. At the heart of the matter of the only rape accusation is whether one of the women was asleep when Assange initiated sex. In her own electronic communications, which the prosecution has in their possession, she admits to NOT being asleep. She refused to sign the statement that was prepared for her claiming she was asleep when sex was initiated (reporting a false rape accusation in Sweden is a crime which seems to explain her unwillingness to sign the statement). Keep in mind also that per the leaked statement, sex continued to completion with both parties making jokes about Assange not wearing a condom. Does this sound like rape to you, regardless of what country's standards are involved?
So what is the evidence against him exactly? Have you read the statement she refused to sign? It was leaked to the press (which kinda discredits much of the prosecution's case to begin with).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)from Naomi Wolf is not shining moment in her career.
Here's the thing...Assange and his supporters leaked a whole helluva lot of speculation and outright falsities to the tabloids. Your article contains many of them.
When it came time for court though.... suddenly these allegations were unproven. You might want to read up on what Ms. Khan wrote about him..... that he should go back to Sweden and faces charges there. Remember she's a woman who put up bail money for him and has been in close contact with him. And you should read the belmarsh decision because it's pretty much an eye opener.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I know that you have claimed to be a lawyer, and I have no reason to doubt this. As such I'm sure you understand the value of contradiction when making an argument. So please don't send me on some wild goose chase on some abstract claim. That's not contradiction and it's not an argument. It's simply a vague reference that whatever you are claiming can be found somewhere. I don't expect you to provide links as some of this information names names, but you're really going to have to do better here. I've already read the things you are expecting me to read. Ms. Khan is someone who fronted some of the bail money(and not much at that) to Assange with the expectation that she would be able to profit from his celebrity. She is the daughter of a billionaire, so it's not as if any money she put us is anything more than a minor inconvenience to her. All she seems to be saying is that Assange should return to Sweden (note that she is only saying this now after he rebuffed her requests to make a profit off of him). Even she seems to admit that Assange will probably be cleared of the most serious charges at the very least. You might want to read up on what Ms. Westwood (who also fronted money for Assange) has to say about Ms. Khan. So I'll see your Ms. Khan and raise you one Michael Moore and one Oliver Stone.
There's only one thing of value that was contained in Naomi Wolf's post that I was interested in, which I listed specifically in my last post. The only real question is whether one of the women was asleep when Assange initiated sex with her. If she was asleep at the time, then the prosecution has a case. If she was not asleep, the prosecution's case becomes extremely difficult if not untenable. The belmarsh decision does not address this issue and specifically says they won't address that issue. Assange is not facing extradition on rape charges. He is facing extradition to be questioned about possible rape charges. If you read the belmarsh decision, you should understand this. Expecting Assange to provide a defense for something he has not been charged with and claiming it's significant that he hasn't is disingenuous. In fact, the very belmarsh decision that you have demanded I read specifically says they need only consider the validity of the warrant itself and not the extrinsic evidence. The belmarsh decision does not address why the prosecution refuses to interview Assange in London and specifically leaves that question unanswered. Why on earth would Sweden send no less than 4 people to England to support his extradition, yet can't seem to manage to send 1 to interrogate Assange in England? You have yet to address that either. Neither did you attempt to address why one prosecutor examined the witness statements and specifically said there wasn't evidence to support a charge of rape. Again if you have the intent of contradicting me, then please do so and providing tangible support rather than abstract references would also be very helpful.
The claim that Assange or whomever leaked anything to tabloids is ridiculous. Within the belmarsh decision you'll find instances where the prosecution leaked pertinent documents to a tabloid, which is exactly what you're accusing Assange (or someone) of doing. Says so right on page 2 so you don't even have to get that far into it. One of his accusers leaked an account of her statements to a tabloid within hours of making it and the entire (unsigned) police witness statement was leaked to the press. That alone would be cause to get the prosecution's case thrown out pretty much the world over. As a lawyer I'm sure you realize how prejudicial and wrong that is. The accusers lawyer (if you can call him that) certainly has no issues with playing out his case with the tabloids. You should read up on him if you want a real eye opener. He has claimed all men are responsible for violence against women. He's also a failed politician who evidently wants back in office which is probably not a bad move for him seeing as how his legal career seems dubious at best.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)We are discussing legal documents. Court-sworn evidence and testimony on public record.
You bring an unsourced opinion piece from three years ago, and demand that it be 'contradicted.'
That is not how this works. You've brought a rusty knife to a gun fight. When you bring something worth debating...I'll debate it.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I made an assertion and provided support for said assertion in the way of a link, not the other way around. Contradiction, support. That's how I roll. If you don't like the support I offered, then at least address the assertion itself. As I said previously, I am not questioning the validity of the belmarsh decision. I am addressing the criminal case against Assange and the bizarre attempts by the prosecution to make a case where none seems to exist and their inexplicable resistance to actually charging him and presenting their case. The legal documents that do exist support their case very poorly and don't explain the conflict from even within their own organization. Until they actually make a charge and release the evidence they have, there's no much to speak about if all you want to discuss is legal documents. However questioning the manner in which they are trying to make their case most certainly merits discussion whether you believe it does or not.
I addressed several items within the very legal document you cited which you failed to respond to. Again, contradiction, support for said contradiction. That's how I roll. I'm even using your own reference.
You and others seem to think it's relevant that Assange refuses to go to Sweden to address the charges and the claim seems to be that his reason for not doing so is fear of those charges. That may very well be so. However what also has merit is why the prosecution specifically refuses to bring charges against him when clearly it is within their power and ability to do so. It's also reasonable to speculate that in doing so their case will fall apart and along with it the extradition request. If their case was really that strong they should have no fear of doing so.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the Belmarsh decision. I think you would ask more pertinent and erudite questions if you read that document.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Your claim was:
This is demonstrably untrue.
Page 15
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You should.read more than a line or two.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I am satisfied that there is no equivocal statement or ambiguity in the warrant. The English version of the warrant states that it is for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. The warrant refers to offences, indicates the relevant provisions of Swedish criminal law; and identifies specific conduct against Mr Assange. There is simply nothing equivocal about the English version of the warrant. As for the Swedish language version, “lagforing” is the term used in the official Swedish language version of the Framework Decision. Mr Robertson says this is not to the point: it simply indicates that all Swedish EAWs that use this formula are ambiguous. I cannot accept that. When the Framework Decision was agreed the Swedish authorities would undoubtedly have considered it and understood its meaning. A request for the purposes of “lagforing” is a lawful request for the purpose of the Framework Decision and the Extradition Act 2003.
In these circumstances I am required to look to the warrant alone, and not to extrinsic evidence. It follows that the evidence I have heard and read on this question is not relevant to the decision I must make as to the validity of the warrant. I am sure the warrant is valid on the face of it. However, the fact remains that much of the material I have read and the evidence I have heard deal with this question. It was a central plank of the defence case. Moreover it is raised not merely in the context of section 2, but also as relevant to the abuse of process argument. For those reasons it would be unhelpful if I were not to make a finding of fact on whether Mr Assange is wanted for prosecution.
You can read on for 4 more pages where the decision talks about only the validity of the warrant itself, then we get to the summary...
1. There is an unequivocal statement that the purpose of the warrant is for prosecution.
2. I am satisfied, looking at the warrant as a whole, that the requested person is an “accused” within section 2(3)(a) of the Extradition Act and is wanted for prosecution under Section 2(3)(b) of the Act.
3. The court must construe the words in the Act in a cosmopolitan sense and not just in terms of the stages of English criminal procedure.
4. As this warrant uses the phrases that are used in the English language version (and indeed the Swedish language version) of the EAW annexed to the Framework Decision, there is no (or very little) scope for argument on the purpose of the warrant.
5. In those circumstances the introduction of extrinsic factual and expert evidence should be discouraged.
6. However, having looked at the extrinsic evidence (perhaps wrongly) the fact that some further pre-trial evidential investigation could result in no trial taking place does not mean this defendant is suspected as opposed to accused.
7. The information provided by Ms Ny proves strong, if not irrebuttable, evidence that the purpose of the warrant is for prosecution.
8. The evidence provided by the defence does not in any way undermine Ms Ny.
9. As a matter of fact, looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person and is wanted for prosecution.
The decision clearly and unambiguously says they need only consider whether the warrant is valid and the arrest warrant is to secure Assange for questioning related to a criminal investigation. Any evidence as to Assange's guilt or innocence is completely irrelevant to the question in front of them which is whether or not the warrant is valid. They had no interest in whether Assange was guilty or innocent.
I don't agree with your interpretation. You can continue to argue for it if you wish, but I remain unconvinced. The very reference you are citing proves you wrong and I find your reading of it completely without merit. You have offered zero text from the decision itself to support your assertion. The claim that I just need to keep reading on to find proof of your assertion is not support of your assertion and looks more like a dodge. Surely as a lawyer you must know better than this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)but raised a technical issue on the warrant, the judge is bound to the four corners of the warrant when considering the technical claim of insufficiency.
What you have demonstrated here again is that Assange did not raise issues of 'innocence' but instead focused on technical arguments regarding the sufficiency of the warrant ( which he lost... no shocker there) and the legal defense that the acts alleged in the warrant itself were not crimes in the UK.
You seem to be conflating those two issues.
Let me add on edit that it is my understanding that Mr Assange no longer retains these particular attorneys.... One can see why. Although I have no doubt that Assange himself directed the defense, this is not the defense I would have put together for an alleged rapist.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)You keep claiming it's in there somewhere, yet you have not quoted anything to support your assertion. Until you do I remain unconvinced.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Courts...except under the most rarest and strangest of circumstances, consider the claims that you bring to the court. And only those claims.
Julian Assange chose not to raise the claim of innocence.
Now let me ask you this.... if you were innocent of the acts alleged in the warrant, wouldn't you mention that in the two years you spent in the UK fighting this extradition?
Wouldn't you at some point in the two years you spent in the UK fighting this extradition mention that you had not DONE the acts alleged in the warrant?
I know as an attorney that if I had a client who had not done the acts alleged in the warrant, I would make damn sure the courts knew that. But if I had a client who not only did the acts alleged the warrant, AND that client had left enough evidence to ensure conviction on those acts, then you'd better believe I'd raise the arguments that Assange's attorneys did.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)You alleged support for your assertion could be found within the decision. Now you are claiming otherwise. You have fully contradicted yourself here. Either support can be found within the decision or it can't. If it can't then you should say so. If it can, then you should quote it. Riding the fence does not help your argument.
Even when Assange offered evidence that the prosecution was prejudicial, the court reminded him that the only matter they need consider was whether the warrant was valid or not in the country of origin. Once again the proof against your assertion can be found in the very reference you provided. What you would have or would not have done is irrelevant. Had you offered that defense, the court would have struck you down the same as they did Assange's defense of the prejudicial nature of the prosecution. They were clearly smart enough to have figured that much out. Furthermore Assage's defense is not in possession of the evidence. His lawyer was shown copies of the electronic communication from the accusers and was NOT allowed to retain copies because Assange has yet to be charged with a crime. So you are claiming that Assange's defense should have presented hearsay evidence when clearly had they done so it would have been rejected by the court even if they were of a mind to accept hearsay evidence (which undoubtedly they would not have). The question before the court was whether or not the warrant was legal in its country of origin. They very clearly stated that nothing else mattered. This is NOT a typical extradition case because both countries are members of the EU and it was an EU warrant that was issued.
You keep saying you're an attorney. If that is true (and I don't expect an anonymous poster to prove something like that), then you should understand the fallacy of an appeal to authority (especially when the authority can't even be verified). I have two members of the bar on my staff. I read legal decisions and opinions all the time. I know how jurisprudence works. You're not the only one who understands these things.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)understand that your interpretation of the decision that went against Mr Assange is fundamentally incorrect. Nor do you seem to understand how basic criminal procedure works. Hearsay isn't even an issue and I can't understand why you would even bring it up except maybe you think that sounds like something you should bring up in a legal argument?
Look...in a prior thread on this I understand that you insisted that a witness, Mr. Hurtig, was not a witness at all. Do you accept now that he was a witness? Do you understand the importance of his testimony?
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)You claimed that support for your assertion could be found in the decision. Where is it? A page reference would be fine. Narrowing it down to a paragraph would be better. Quoting the exact section would be brilliant.
I've supported my assertion by using the exact reference you insisted I use. If we continue to disagree it matters little to me.
The person I replied to was representing him as just a witness. He isn't just a witness. He's Assange's legal representative. He can certainly testify as to his communications with Assange, but calling him a witness is certainly disingenuous. Impeaching him on the basis of whatever he was witness to is even more ridiculous. His job is to be an aggressive advocate for Assange. Surely you must understand this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and you keep proving that every single time you post that you cannot find his claim of innocence addressed in the decision. Every single time.
Now that you have finally accepted the fact that Mr Hurtig was a witness.... Tell us the significance of his testimony.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I never claimed Assange should have presented his claim of innocence at Belmarsh. That is your claim. Trying to turn this around and pretend I'm claiming something I clearly haven't does your argument no good. It just shows you're willing to employ strawman rhetoric when it suits you.
I never claimed the Belmarsh decision was wrong. In fact, I clearly stated I didn't disagree with it. The UK is an EU country. The warrant was an EU warrant. They need only consider if the warrant was valid or not. They found it was. I never disputed this. Assange's guilt or innocence has nothing to do with their decision anymore than anything else that isn't related to the validity of the warrant. Until Assange is charged with a crime, his guilt or innocence is irrelevant. You keep expecting Assange to defend himself against something he hasn't even been charged with. The fallacy of this is strikingly apparent and demonstrably false provable by your own reference that you keep claiming proves otherwise, but suspiciously are unable to quote.
I already told you what the significance of his testimony was. Did you not even bother to read my last post?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Mr. Hurtig's testimony?
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)What's red, hangs on the wall, and whistles?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You remember--the testimony that Magistrate Riddle coaxed out of Mr. Hurtig---after his, "prevaricating," according to the Court?
Remember how Mr. Hurtig testified that he advised his client, Mr. Assange, that his upcoming interview with the prosecutor would involve a blood test and arrest? So Assange got on a plane? And how Mr. Hurtig then represented to the prosecution that Mr. Assange would return to Sweden to complete this process, although he knew that he never would?
Now you can claim that that matter is completely unrelated to Assange's guilt or innocence. You can claim that. And if the judges in Sweden are particularly ignorant of how criminals behave, they might believe that. But I don't think they will....
If it talks like a rapist**, flees like a rapist.....
**"Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism," Julian Assange has said in a recent interview. "I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism.""
http://jezebel.com/5718817/assange-sweden-is-the-saudi-arabia-of-feminism
You should read how the man you defend described one victim's revealing clothing.....
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Here's is what actually was said:
(about the possibility of arrest).
Now the court certainly said that they didn't believe some of what Assange's lawyer testified to regarding his contact with his client, but they also said it was possible he was completely truthful. So passing judgement either way is speculation, regardless of basis. This was mentioned inside the Belmarsh decision. Remember also that Assange had every reason to believe the CIA was going to snatch him at any moment, so the idea that he would have gone a week or two without contacting his lawyer and/or swapping his phones out to avoid detection is certainly not outside the realm of possibility. He would have been stupid not to have been ditching his phone for another on a regular basis and as far as he knew he had no reason to contact his lawyer. He already had permission to leave the country, in writing and from the very prosecutor who is now trying to arrest him.
Assange's lawyer told the prosecutor that Assange intended to leave Sweden 13 days before he actually left Sweden. He even asked her if there was any legal impediment to him leaving Sweden. She replied (in writing) that there was none. I can prove this if you like. So for 13 days the prosecutor knew Assange was leaving Sweden and Assange knew the prosecutor was informed of his pending departure, yet she took no action to arrest him or even bar him from leaving the country, and in fact the arrest warrant wasn't issued until 2 full months AFTER he left Sweden. And how could Assange's lawyer even know there was a possibility he could be arrested after the interview? I haven't even seen evidence that he was told this. Even if he was (and I don't think he was), there's no evidence that he was able to contact Assange. Assange already had one arrest warrant pending against him and while he was in the process of turning himself in, the arrest warrant was CANCELLED and the prosecutor who cancelled it specifically said the evidence didn't support a charge of rape. I have mentioned this to you already and you ignored it. Furthermore AFTER the first arrest warrant was cancelled, Assange went to a police station in Stockholm and provided a statement, then remained in Sweden for almost a month. He knew he had permission to leave the country, and in fact remained in Sweden for 13 days AFTER he knew he had permission to leave. Does this sound like someone who "flees like a rapist"?
I'm not defending anyone. I'm stating facts that are known and offering my own opinions. Some of the things I've seen you may not have so the idea that either of us is absolutely right and the other is wrong is egocentric. Neither of us know what really happened. If you are going to characterize me as a 'rape apologist' I will invite you to go pee up a rope. I'm not going to play those games. I expect better from you as opposed to others who are only capable of ad hominem BS, that's why we are having this discussion because I wouldn't waste my time on those who employ those strategies.
Jezebel? Really? That is your evidence Assange is guilty? And you fault me for referencing Naomi Wolf? Wow. They conveniently leave out the fact that one of the victims published a 7 step guide on how to get revenge on an ex-lover. There is no question that Assange is an asshole. That doesn't make him a rapist. Jezebel also conveniently leaves out that the first woman Assange had sex with made disparaging statements about the 2nd including the clothing she was wearing. She also characterized her as an idiot.
Remember how you claimed Assange's lawyer didn't offer evidence of his innocence? [div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"]Turns out you were wrong about that too. Here it is...
Page 7
And what does the court have to say about this? As far as I can tell, nothing. Again they had no interest in whether Assange was guilty or innocent, but only that the warrant was valid.
Now maybe this is true and maybe it isn't. We are hearing this from Assange's lawyer. However the prosecution hasn't disputed it as far as I know and remember that he is ASKING them if he can disclose it and they said he could which means the evidence is in their possession. If true it means the woman was awake at the time he penetrated her. If it's true it means they had a motive to lie. Remember also that by her own admission she knew he didn't have a condom on after he penetrated her and never told him to stop. They even joked about it. Neither side disputes this part. Remember also that they had sex just hours before this happened which nobody disputes. So is this rape? Certainly not in any country besides Sweden, and arguably not even in Sweden. Remember one prosecutor already determined it wasn't and specifically said the evidence didn't support it. So this issue is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Assange may very well be a rapist. I'm certainly open to that possibility and initially I was convinced of it. Now it doesn't seem as certain. Asshole, yes. Rapist? Maybe not. I'm no big fan of Assange. Whether he goes to prison or not matters little to me. If he is a rapist, he should. If he's not, the prosecution should drop their case and they seem to be in possession of evidence which casts serious doubt about his guilt. There are certainly other possible motives for them pressing for his extradition.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)are conflating what the judge found, and what the defense claimed. That blows your first claim apart.
Second.... here your lack of knowledge about court procedure really becomes apparent. Mr Hurtig appeared as Mr Assange's witness. He was not Mr Assange's lawyer in the UK system... and therefore was not one of the attorneys responsible for the UK filings...which did not claim innocence...at all.
Further... you presented absolutely nothing that indicates that Assange did not commit acts indicated in the warrant. what you posted is further proof that the acts that are alleged in the warrant happened ... Assange is debating the meaning of those apps and the bias of the victims... he's not claiming innocence of doing those acts.
When are you going to post Assange's defense of the specific acts alleged in the warrant?
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I didn't claim he acted as Assange's lawyer in the UK system. He was Assange's lawyer in Sweden. As such he is a professional advocate for Assange. That's what a lawyer is. At least on this planet that makes him far more than just a witness. You are cherry picking my statement made to someone else and taking it out of context. Read on and you'll see I fully acknowledged Hurtig's status as a witness to the extradition proceedings, but he is far more than just a witness which is what the person (not you) was alleging which is far afield from the truth. None of this is in any way relevant to anything we discussed and I can't help thinking you are deliberately taking my comments from a completely separate conversation out of context as nothing more than a cheap red herring rhetorical trick. Those don't work on me. You'll have to try them on someone else. I'll just identify them for what they are which doesn't help your case any.
The judge didn't say Hurtig lied. They said they found him to be unreliable. It had nothing to do with Assange's guilt or innocence. They were simply unconvinced he never gave Assange the message from the prosecutor. It's certainly possible he didn't. As I stated, Assange had a very good reason for remaining incognito. The CIA is known for snatching suspects with no regard to the legal rights of the host country. He would be stupid not to be. They also said it was possible he didn't lie. Once again I have to quote your own reference to prove you are completely mistaken:
Here's what they said exactly:
Had you read on, you might have found this...
"unreliable witness" and "reasonable assumption" are NOT the same thing as saying he lied. You are either oblivious to the actual statements or are being disingenuous. Next time you may wish to support your assertions with actual quotes from the decision. I do.
They go on to say this:
So guess what. He said something that was misleading and he later corrected it, but didn't do so very loudly. Lawyers do this all the time. They ride the line between being completely candid and perjury. Often they get sanctioned for it by the court. This is what separates a normal witness from a witness who is also an advocate for the defendant. You should know this yet strangely seem not to.
Umm, no that's exactly what he's doing. He's saying the prosecution has evidence that directly contradicts what was in the warrant. Do you not understand the significance of whether the alleged victim was asleep or not at the time of penetration?
FFS, I quoted them in my previous post. Right from the very decision you are claiming is the gold standard of evidence. I highlighted relevant text, I listed the page number. I even included a link so you could very easily see it for yourself without even having to look it up. You have provided zero proof of any of your assertions, not one quote, not one link, nothing, nada, zip. Only your unsupported assertions which have been proved wrong more than once by your own reference no less. Do you need to be drawn a picture?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Is there some definition of 'prevarication' that I am unaware of? Some definition that indicates 'prevarication' means truthfulness and not lying???
Again... post for us the part of the decision where in Mr Assange claims he did not do the acts contained in the warrant. Still waiting for that....all your throat clearing aside.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Please quote the entire sentence at minimum.
Next you can quote what the warrant actually alleges and I'll once again quote the contradiction offered.
Furthermore I'd like at least a reasonable explanation as to why you keep ignoring the relevant facts I've pointed out.
Why did the first prosecutor cancel the original arrest warrant and why did that same prosecutor state that there wasn't evidence to support a charge of rape?
I'm still waiting on an answer there, yet so far you are strangely mum on the question. It's as if you are pretending I never brought it up.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You posted on this thread so of course I assumed that you were, at the minimum, familiar with the issues being discussed. Please read the thread you are participating in... in particular you will find a nother Assange supporter..DisgustipatedInCA and I have an extensive discussion on how Magistrate Riddle specifically used the word prevarication to describe Mr Hurtig's unbelievable testimony.
You keep conflating what Mr Hurtig testified to, and what Magistrate Riddle actually found.
Upthread, you have another citation problem.
Again...since you finally read the decision kindly show us where Mr Assange claims that he did not commit the acts listed in the warrant.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)You seem to have found it once, but curiously can't seem to do so again. The link to the PDF is contained in several of my messages. Control-F on your keyboard brings up the search feature. When you type the word it it takes you to all the places where that word is found. From there, Control-C activates the copy feature for selected text and Control-V will paste it here wherever the cursor is. If you're on a Mac I can look up the equivalent commands for you if needed. Help me help you.
xulamaude
(847 posts)And neither are you.
I, for one, have held forth with exactly zero opinion on the NSA/Odsp here or anywhere.
I think that's what y'all like to call The Broad Brush?
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)took great exception to any criticism of rape porn. 
They won't find a single post from me defending the NSA or any of that crap. My priorities are very clear. Assange is an accused sexual assailant like any other.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)That is laughable, and apparently you agree.
xulamaude
(847 posts)rape apology.
Please.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)And yet you continue to insist that it's laughable. There's something laughable here alright, but it's not what you think.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You may be one of them. The OP may even be one of them. As a trend, however, I think you'll find that peoples' position on Assange aligns consistently with their position on domestic spying.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Here is what you just posted:
That is laughable, and apparently you agree.
The OP is one of the people telling you that SHE (not he, as you said) doesn't post opinions on NSA, and yet you insists that she does. You really should get your insults organized before you start dishing them out.
"So it's just a coincidence that all of the people who vigorously promote those flimsy charges also defend the NSA and Obama's domestic spying programs?"
"All" means all.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Not all. Of course there are exceptions-- but generally speaking, I have noticed a relationship between how convinced people are of Assange's guilt, and where they stand on the NSA.
xulamaude
(847 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And I think Assange should face charges. I think he's done a lot of good, but that doesn't mean we should look the other way when there are rape charges.
"They won't find a single post from me defending the NSA or any of that crap. My priorities are very clear. Assange is an accused sexual assailant like any other."
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Tells you all you need to know.
As a side note, last night on Chris Hayes, Amy Goodman referred to Edward Snowden as a "patriot". I swear I heard heads popping from my living room. 
Marr
(20,317 posts)I think a lot of people here are kidding themselves.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Neat.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)own conduct towards those women is an NSA apologist and authoritarian, in your tidy little Manichean narrative.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I also strongly believe Assange is hiding out of consciousness of guilt. BB, whom I regularly tangle with over other matters, has done solid work bolstering the facts as to why Assange refuses to face his accusers and destroying the false defenses erected by those who are willing to sacrifice the dignity of two victims in the name of their pet political axe grinding.
It is possible to have Assange answer his accusers AND oppose the corruption of the democratic state even if Assange initially created the tool through which that opposition was realized. WikiLeaks will not disappear if Assange is found guilty. Information released will not suddenly become untrue. In fact, the service provided by WikiLeaks ca be replicated on other sites and other venues.
Assange IS NOT the embodiment of opposition to state corruption and those who make him such are acting foolishly and in direct odds to their stated purpose of social justice; whether they know it or not.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I don't know him, I'm not his lawyer, and as far as the charges against him are concerned, I'm quite happy to let the legal system sort it out.
But it is foolish, in my humble opinion, to think that the law is never used to discredit people for political purposes, or to insist that there is no connection between positions on Assange and positions on NSA spying, generally. I've personally found that the people who most aggressively promote the charges are most convinced of his guilt are also generally supportive of the NSA. That doesn't mean you personally, or every single poster here, but generally speaking, I have noticed a strong trend.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and all of his critics are boot-licking, NSA-humping authoritarians."
Marr
(20,317 posts)Sees an accurate description for some of them, however.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But it would be grossly unfair to smear everyone holding one belief by accusing them as a group of holding a noxious, unrelated belief, correct?
Marr
(20,317 posts)how doggedly a poster talks about the as-yet-unresolved charges against Assange, how guilty they assume he is, and where they stand on NSA spying.
Some see a traitor where others see a whistleblower, and to pretend it has nothing to do with politics and the individual's position on spying is just ridiculous.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Assange admirers being the most likely to make egregious comments that sound like they're out of Steubenville?
Marr
(20,317 posts)People who insist he's innocent are coloring their opinions with politics every bit as much as those who insist he's guilty.
Have you noticed this in arguments from both sides as well?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)entirely separately from the NSA, etc.
If he's innocent, the facts will show that.
If he's not, the facts will hopefully show that.
Sexual assault cases should not be 'spun.'
Marr
(20,317 posts)This is something for the legal system to work out.
The way this case is actually discussed... it seems more a method to distract from or minimize information that originates from Wikileaks. Every time something comes out that makes the NSA/Obama Administration look bad, we're reminded that Assange is accused of a crime.
xulamaude
(847 posts)But even if that were true, so what? He IS accused of crimes. Accusations that he'd apparently rather bend over backward to avoid than face.
Assange is the wrench in the "legal system".
Marr
(20,317 posts)Assange is responding a legal proceeding with a defense that is legal. I don't know if he's guilty or not-- and neither do you. His legal maneuvering suggests neither guilt nor innocence.
As for 'so what'?... I thought your position was that those accusations have nothing to do with a person's opinion on NSA spying. If that's the case, why are they relevant to discussions on NSA spying?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)he's been given the opportunity to contest extradition to Sweden. He availed himself of that opportunity; his challenge to extradition was rejected. He appealed; his appeal was rejected. He had a further appeal; that was also rejected. He has challenged extradition at every level of the British courts, and lost. So what does he do? Does he surrender himself for extradition? No, he jumps bail and leaves the people who stood as sureties out of pocket by £140,000. His legal manoeuvring suggests at this point guilt. A serious legal defence would be going to Sweden and having his day in court. Which he hasn't done.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It could also be that he feels he's being set up and that he will be railroaded in some fashion.
I have no idea if the accusations against him are true, but I don't find it hard to believe that someone in his position would be railroaded, guilty or not. I don't see his maneuvering as indicative of anything beyond self-preservation.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)His contention that the acts he stood accused of would not constitute rape and sexual assault under the law of England and Wales, and that therefore he ought not to be extradited, on grounds of "dual criminality" (ie that a state not extradite for something which is not a crime under its own laws), was decisively rejected by the High Court.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Assange is wanted for rape. He has not disputed that he committed the acts that form the basis of the allegations. He has disputed whether they constitute rape and sexual assault. He has had the opportunity to contest the extradition, and to appeal the judgement against him, at every level of the British courts. He has lost, decisively. Rather than surrender himself for arrest and extradition he chose to run to the Ecuadorean embassy and request diplomatic asylum in order to avoid prosecution.
What good work Wikileaks may have done has been undermined by Assange's actions, and by Assange's decision...a unilateral decision, taken all on his own...to publish remaining unreleased US diplomatic cables, unredacted. His cavalier attitude to the potential disclosure of sensitive information and the naming of informants and issidents speaks to his character, or rather the lack thereof.
Edward Snowden is not Wikileaks. Edward Snowden is not Chelsea Manning. It is quite possible to be of the opinion that Wikileaks has performed a public service while at the same time finding Assange to be a very unpleasant person; it is also quite possible to find a significant difference between the actions of Manning (releasing to a third party large amounts of classified data with no real knowledge of what was contained therein) and the actions of Snowden (which involved a release of classified information relating specifically the the scale and scope of intelligence services' data gathering practices).
Some people are also apparently much more capable of nuance than others.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And just because it happens doesn't mean it is happening in this instance. Assange is being accused to two former supporters with established histories in the activist community. "It might be a set-up!" is NOT an excuse for sacrificing the dignity of two women who might be the victims of sexual assault.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You are claiming that Assange was set up.
Why would we set him up in Sweden? We only have an "ok" relationship with Sweden. Their legal system is significantly different, which complicates setting someone up. And we don't have a whole lot of infrastructure in Sweden.
On the other hand, the UK is our closest ally, has a nearly identical legal system, and hosts lots of US installations. Assange was living in the UK, and they could have just arrested him for a crime in the UK instead letting him walk around during a lengthy extradition case. And the UK would love to extradite him to the US (except Assange didn't actually break US law - Manning did.)
So why on Earth would we set Assange up in Sweden?
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)He would be held there for a period of time, more or less incommunicado, while any furor died down. Then additional arrangements would be made to extradite him to the US.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)A sobbing woman claiming to have been raped works regardless of that woman's nationality.
Alternatively, he wasn't set up......
treestar
(82,383 posts)And probably not even true - you don't even manage to make out a case for the charges being "flimsy." If they are that weak, Julian should just have gone to court to have them disposed of.
Interesting how far he goes to avoid that.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)I guess I'm just an Authoritarian!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)the Swedish system of jurisprudence in matter of sexual assault is insufficient as a whole. It portrays Sweden as a place where a woman need only accuse and the accused is as good as doomed. This is beyond disgraceful and demeaning to victims of sexual assault. As if Assange is being targeted by a former SUPPORTER now turned tool for Assange's detractors. That's not a conclusion, that's a conspiracy theory wrapped in tissue-thin complaint that, if acted upon, would make all Swedish rape convictions suspect.
The dismissive "useful idiots" canard is the icing on the cake. Nevermind the fact Assange has TWO accusers, not just Ardin. Nevermind that a Swedish and now a UK court have examined the merits of the accusation. Anybody who wants Assange to see a 3rd day in court 9while his accusers get 0) are merely useful idiots. "Don't listen to them! They're idiots! Why are you listening to idiots! It can't possibly be about rape, they're idiots being used by a nefarious cabal that makes former supporters falsely cry rape!"
Whatever.
If Sweden is such a hotbed of international intrigue in service to dark machinations then Assange should, at a minimum, be locked up for being a big enough dip shit to go there in the first place.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The question is not whether the Swedish system of jurisprudence is fair to defendants, it is, rather, has the Swedish government promised not to extradite Assange once he is in their custody? Until they do make such a promise (officially and in writing) I will continue to believe this is all an elaborate plot by our government to grab our "Internet Robin Hood" and stick him in the deepest, darkest hole they can find.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Either we are discussing sexual assault and the facts underlying that accusation or we are not. Possible extradition to the US is not a get out of rape free card; not that a US extradition warrant exists.
Horse crap. It would have been easier to grab Assange in London where he openly walked the streets for years. And if yu think Obama is going to cover for Bush-era offenses perhaps you are at the wrong forum.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Sad, but maybe it has to be that way.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The UK has a nearly identical judicial system to the US, is our closest ally, and has an extradition treaty with the US.
If the US wanted Assange, there is no need to get him from Sweden. It would be much easier to get him from the UK.
There's also the little matter that Assange didn't break US law. Manning did. Assange was free to publish the information Manning leaked, thanks to the First Amendment. (Assuming Assange didn't pay for the information, nor sold the information. Which is the case here)
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Assange had not been charged with an actual crime, so Great Britain would not extradite him. They were ready to send him by force back to Sweden for "Questioning." That's why he got asylum in the Ecuadoran Embassy.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You have an odd definition of "try".
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The rest is under the table and behind the scenes. Bottom line: No actual criminal charge? No extradition from Great Britain.
Sweden is a quite different story. If he lands in Sweden, our government can unveil a grand jury indictment for espionage, and the Swedes will give him up much more easily than the Brits (who, if I understand correctly, don't extradite on spying charges).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You understand incorrectly. The UK happily extradites for "spying charges".
Also, Assange can not be charged with espionage. He hasn't broken our espionage laws.
Manning broke the law by giving over the documents. But there is no law preventing Assange from publishing those documents. There are laws against bribing Manning, or selling the documents. Assange did neither.
"They'd come up with something!!!!!" is your response? Then why is Greenwald still free? He's come to the US multiple times since Snowden started leaking to him. No need to extradite - he was on US soil. Yet he wasn't arrested.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)England is not Britain is not the UK.
And Assange stands accused of extraditable offences. "Has not been charged with a crime" is sheer ignorance based on a lack of understanding of the Swedish legal system. The finding of the UK High Court in his extradition appeal was that criminal proceedings have commenced against him in Sweden.
(a) The provisions of the 2003 Act
It is a condition set out in s.2(2) of the 2003 Act that an EAW must contain the statement set out in s.2(3):
"A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant ... which contains (a) the statement referred to in subsection (3)"
That sub-section then provides:
"The statement is one that
(a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is accused in the Category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant, and
(b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence."
This reflects in part Article 1.1 of the Framework Decision which specifies that extradition is for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution.
It was common ground that extradition is not permitted for investigation or gathering evidence or questioning to see if the requested person should be prosecuted.
(ii) The finding of the Senior District Judge
The Senior District Judge found that there was no ambiguity in the EAW. He was therefore required to look at the warrant alone. He was sure it was valid on its face; the surrender of Mr Assange was, as the warrant stated, requested for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offences. The Senior District Judge was satisfied, looking at the warrant as a whole, that Mr Assange was an accused person. However he went on to make findings on the extrinsic evidence, as we set out at paragraph 148 below.
(iii) The issue: .vas Mr Assange "accused"
It was accepted in oral submissions made on behalf of Mr Assange that the surrender of Mr Assange was sought for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (satisfying 2(3)(b)), as the Senior District Judge had held. That concession was made because it was accepted that the words "for the purposes of being prosecuted" were broad enough to encompass a prosecution that would commence in the future. Under the Framework Decision which used that term the concepts of pre-charge investigation and post charge prosecution had been elided. An EAW could therefore be issued under the Framework Decision prior to the point at which a criminal prosecution had commenced.
However it was contended that the 2003 Act imposed a further safeguard; by requiring the person to be "accused", it had to be clear that the criminal proceedings had in fact commenced. The 2003 Act separated the concepts of pre-charge investigation and post-charge prosecution in this way. The EAW did not contain a statement that Mr Assange was accused of the commission of an offence in Sweden; that was because he had not been accused of an offence, as criminal proceedings had not been commenced. The Senior District Judge was wrong so to have found. He should also have considered the evidence extraneous to the EAW. The 2003 Act had specifically included s.2(3)(a) so that an EAW could not be used for the purposes of conducting an investigation; it could only be used where a person had been charged. If an EAW was issued prior to the point at which a criminal prosecution had commenced and the person charged, it was not a valid EAW.
(iv) The meaning of "accused"
S.1 of the Extradition Act 1989 had provided for the extradition of a person who was "accused" in a foreign state of the commission of an extradition crime. In Re Ismail [1999] 1 AC 320, the defendant challenged his extradition to Germany on the basis that no decision had been taken in Germany to launch criminal proceedings and that in any event a formal charge was necessary before a suspect could be an "accused" person. Lord Steyn in giving the leading judgment set out his views on the meaning of "accused" at page 326. It is necessary to set this out at length because a passage upon which Mr Assange particularly relied must be seen in context.
"It is common ground that mere suspicion that an individual has committed offences is insufficient to place him in the category of "accused" persons. It is also common ground that it is not enough that he is in the traditional phrase "wanted by the police to help them with their inquiries." Something more is required. What more is needed to make a suspect an "accused" person? There is no statutory definition. Given the divergent systems of law involved, and notably the differences between criminal procedures in the United Kingdom and in civil law jurisdictions, it is not surprising that the legislature has not attempted a definition. For the same reason it would be unwise for the House to attempt to define the word "accused" within the meaning of the Act of 1989. It is, however, possible to state in outline the approach to be adopted. The starting point is that "accused" in s.1 of the Act of 1989 is not a term of art. It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold test of being an "accused" person. Next there is the reality that one is concerned with the contextual meaning of "accused" in a statute intended to serve the purpose of bringing to justice those accused of serious crimes. There is a transnational interest in the achievement of this aim. Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought, therefore, to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the texts permits it in order to facilitate extradition ... It follows that it would be wrong to approach the problem of construction solely from the perspective of English criminal procedure, and in particular from the point of view of the formal acts of the laying of an information or the preferring an indictment. Moreover, it is important to note that in England a prosecution may also be commenced if a custody officer decides that there is sufficient evidence to charge an arrested person and then proceeds to charge him... Despite the fact that the prosecuting authorities and the court are not involved at that stage, the charging of an arrested person marks the beginning of a prosecution and the suspect becomes an "accused" person. And that is so even if the police continue to investigate afterwards."
He continued at page 327:
"It is not always easy for an English court to decide when in a civil law jurisdiction a suspect becomes an "accused" person. All one can say with confidence is that a purposive interpretation of "accused" ought to be adopted in order to accommodate the differences between legal systems. In other words, it is necessary for our courts to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the question whether as a matter of substance rather than form the requirement of there being an "accused" person is satisfied. That such a broad approach to the interpretation of section 1 of the Act of 1989 is permissible is reinforced by the provisions of section 20. This provision deals with the reverse position of an extradition of a person "accused" in the United Kingdom and contemplates that "proceedings" against him may not be commenced ("begun"
for six months after his return. This provides contextual support for a correspondingly broad approach to "accused" in section 1. For my part I am satisfied that the Divisional Court in this case posed the right test by addressing the broad question whether the competent authorities in the foreign jurisdiction had taken a step which can fairly be described as the commencement of a prosecution. But in the light of the diversity of cases which may come before the courts it is right to emphasise that ultimately the question whether a person is "accused" within the meaning of section 1 of the Act of 1989 will require an intense focus on the particular facts of each case." (The passage in italics is the passage particularly relied upon by Mr Assange.)
The decision of Parliament to insert into the 2003 Act the requirement that the person was "accused" of an offence in addition to the requirement under the Framework Decision that surrender was sought for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence can be seen as an expression of Parliament's intention to add an additional requirement to the Framework Decision. It must also be borne in mind, however, that in examining the difference between the language of the 2003 Act and the Extradition Act 1989, the requirement that the surrender was sought for the purpose of being prosecuted for an offence was an additional requirement to what was set out in the Extradition Act 1989.
Although, as we have explained at paragraph 9 and following, the 2003 Act generally must be construed as giving effect to the Framework Decision, a court has to take account of the fact that it had been open to Parliament to provide a greater measure of protection (see the passage in the judgment of Lord Hope in Cando Armas which we have set out at paragraph 12 above). Furthermore, as Parliament used the term "accused", it must have intended to use the term in the light of the guidance given in Ismail: we agree with the similar observations of Aikens LJ in Asztaslos v The Szekszard City Court in Hungary [2010] EWHC 237 (Admin) at paragraphs 16-19. We were referred to statements made in Parliament by Ministers, but we do not consider it necessary to refer to them as the language of the Act is clear.
It is not perhaps surprising that the courts have not found it easy to determine the circumstances in which the requirement in s.2(3)(b) (for the purpose of being prosecuted) is satisfied (as it is in this case) but not s.2(3)(a) ("accused"
. In Judicial authority ofthe Court of First Instance, Hasselt, Belgium v Bartlett [2010] EWHC 1390 (Admin), Toulson LJ said at paragraph 52 that the EAW in that case complied with s2(3) even though the warrant did not contain the word "accused". He applied the approach in Asztaslos of examining the EAW without regard to evidence extraneous to the EAW to see if it was clear. He then adopted what Jack J had said in Dabas v High Court of Madrid [2006] EWHC 971 (Admin):
"If [a person] is wanted for prosecution, and the warrant later describes the offence and sets out its circumstances and gives the statutory provision which he is alleged to have infringed, it is very difficult to see how he can be described other than as an "accused" even if there is no statement using that word. The subject of such a European arrest warrant is clearly more than a suspect or someone who is wanted for questioning."
The court should, in our view, be very careful in the context of the 2003 Act and the Framework Decision about giving to the word "accused" some technical procedural meaning which would amount to a hurdle which other Member States cannot match in their own procedures.
(v) The terms of the EAW
As we have set out at paragraph 2 above, the EAW stated that it requested Mr Assange be surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. It was in the standard form of the EAW in the annex to the Framework Decision. The Prosecutor had not adapted the wording to the case by deleting the reference to executing a custodial sentence, but this is not relevant. Although the EAW makes clear that the surrender is requested for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution, set out the offences and does refer to the warrant being based on the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, there is nothing in the EAW that formally states he is accused of an offence in Sweden.
It is clear that the statements required by s.2(3) of the 2003 Act are essential requirements; they are not simple formalities: Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas. (see the judgments of Lord Hope at paragraph 42 and Lord Scott at paragraph 56-7). In Dabas (to which we referred at paragraph 64 above), Lord Hope made clear at paragraph 50:
"A warrant which does not contain the statements referred to in [s.2(2)] cannot be eked out by extraneous information. The requirements of s.2(2) are mandatory. If they are not met, the warrant is not a Part 1 warrant and the remaining provisions of that Part of the Act will not apply to it."
It follows that the Prosecutor must not have had its attention drawn to the further observations of Lord Hope in Cando Armas at paragraph 48:
"The fact that Part 1 of the 2003 Act does not match the requirements of the Framework Directive is confusing to the unwary, and it appears likely that it will be a source of continuing difficulty. Steps should be taken to remind the authorities in the category 1 territories that the statements referred to in section 2(2) of the Act are a necessary part of the procedure that has been laid down in Part 1 of the Act."
It is not necessary for the statement to use the precise terms set out in the 2003 Act, so long as it is clear that that is what the EAW read as a whole is saying and that it complies with the requirements of s.2(3).
We agree with the approach of Toulson LJ in Bartlett that the language of the EAW should make clear that
"The investigation must have reached the stage at which the requesting judicial authority is satisfied that he faces a case such that he ought to be tried for the specified offence or offences, and the purpose of the request for extradition must be to place him on trial." (paragraph 50)
In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect.
(vi) The circumstances in which the extraneous evidence was adduced
However, the submissions made by Mr Assange were advanced, as we have mentioned, on the basis of extraneous evidence to which we must now refer.
Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:
"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.
7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime. provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.
9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.
10. Once the interrogation is complete. it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
The language of paragraph 6 of the statement in terms made clear he was "accused" of an offence; the remainder of the statement explained the procedure. The Senior District Judge then heard evidence; his findings on that evidence are summarised by us at paragraph 148 below
(vii) The contention of Mr Assange on the extraneous evidence
Mr Assange's contention was that he had not been accused of an offence in Sweden. For that to happen a decision to prosecute had to be made and none had been. Criminal proceedings had not commenced. Lord Steyn, in Ismail in the passage at page 327 (which we have highlighted in italics at paragraph 133 above), had approved the approach of the Divisional Court in asking in that case whether the authorities had taken a step which could fairly be described as the commencement of proceedings. Reliance was placed on the following by Mr Assange:
i) The Senior District Judge, who had heard evidence of Swedish law, had found on the evidence before him that the proceedings were at the preliminary investigation stage; that the preliminary investigation did not come to an end until the evidence was served on Mr Assange or his lawyer and there had been an interrogation of him with the opportunity for further enquiries. Thereafter there would be a decision to charge; if charged, it was likely that the trial would take place shortly thereafter.
ii) There were numerous statements by Ms Ny that the proceedings were still at the investigative stage. She had said on 19 November 2010; "We have come to a point in the investigation where we cannot go further without speaking to Julian Assange." She had written to the Australian Ambassador in December 2010 making it clear that she was engaged in an "on going investigation". In a conversation with the Ambassador on 16 December 2010, she had confirmed that no decision had been made to prosecute Mr Assange. It was only when such a decision was made that Mr Assange would be granted access to all the documents in the case.
iii) In the Prosecutor's submission to the Svea Court of Appeal when it was considering the appeal of Mr Assange against the decision to issue a warrant for his arrest (to which we have referred at paragraph 51 above), the Prosecutor had stated that the reason for the arrest of Mr Assange was "in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution". In rejecting the appeal the Court had stated in its reasons that Mr Assange was "suspected with probable cause of' the four offences to which we referred at paragraph 3.
iv) The translation of the EAW was wrong; the word translated as "criminal prosecution" was in Swedish "for lagforing". This was a general term relating to the entire process; it meant "legal proceedings". There were more precise words that should have been used such as åtala or åklaga which meant prosecute or indict.
(viii) Can extraneous evidence be examined!
There have been a number of cases where a challenge has been made to an EAW on the basis that it requested surrender of a person who neither was accused of an offence nor whose surrender was sought for the purposes of being prosecuted for the offence. The question arose in some of those cases as to whether the court could examine material extraneous to the EAW. The cases were considered in Asztaslos v The Szekszard City Court in Hungary (2010] EWHC 237 (Admin) where Aikens LJ, in giving the judgment of the court, summarised the effect of the cases at paragraph 38 of his judgment in seven propositions. He concluded that the court should only examine extraneous evidence if the wording of the warrant was equivocal and then only as a last resort. It should be discouraged. The correctness of this conclusion was challenged on behalf of Mr Assange.
We were referred to a number of cases including the following. In Vey v The Office of the Public Prosecutor ofthe County Court ofMontlucon, France [2006] EWHC 760 (Admin), the EAW referred to the defendant as an accused, but other statements made it unclear whether it was issued for the purposes of the defendant being prosecuted. The further information requested by the District Judge made matters less clear. The court (Moses LJ and Holland J) examined the procedure in France to determine whether extradition was sought for the purposes of a prosecution. In McCormack v Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper. France [2008] EWHC 1453 (Admin) the EAW described the stage in the investigation which had been reached; the court (Maurice Kay LJ and Penry-Davey J) received evidence of French criminal procedure to determine whether he was an accused and wanted for the purposes of prosecution. In Thompson v Public Prosecutor of Boulogne sur Mer [2008] EWHC 2787 (Admin), there was no extraneous material; the court (Scott Baker LJ and Aikens J) had to decide on the language of the warrant whether the conditions were met. In R(Trenk) v District Court in Plzen-Mesto. Czech Republic [2009] EWHC 1132 (Admin), the court (Davis J) reviewed extraneous materials in determining whether the case had crossed the boundary from investigation to prosecution. In The Judicial Authority of the Court ofFirst Instance. Hasselt, Belgium v Bartlett [2010] EWHC 1390 (Admin), the EAW referred to the judicial investigation producing serious indications that the defendant was guilty and referred to the "facts of which he was charged"; expert evidence was heard by the District Judge. Although the court (Toulson L.J and Griffith Williams J) considered that extraneous evidence should not be admitted to contradict a warrant where it was clear, the court used the extraneous material, in the event, as the warrant contained an ambiguity.
The cases do show differing approaches. It is, however, not necessary for us to decide whether evidence extraneous to the EAW was admissible in order to determine this appeal. It is in those circumstances not desirable for us to consider the correctness of what was said by Aikens L.J said in Asztaslos (as we were invited to do by Mr Emmerson) or to state in our own words what approach should be adopted. We can determine the matter on the assumption that the EAW did not make clear Mr Assange was accused (contrary to the view we have expressed at paragraph 140) and that Mr Assange was entitled to rely on the extraneous evidence in relation to the question as to whether he was accused. We would simply emphasise our view that, although we have made the second assumption, cases where evidence extraneous to the EAW is admitted should be very few and far between.
(ix) Conclusion on the extraneous evidence
The Senior District Judge found on the basis of the extraneous evidence that the fact some further pre-trial evidential investigation might result in no trial taking place did not mean Mr Assange was suspected as opposed to accused; and the fact that under Swedish law a person had to be interrogated before a decision to charge was made was not determinative. Clear and specific allegations had been made against Mr Assange. Although he could not say when or what step had been taken which could fairly be described as the commencement of the prosecution, the boundary between suspicion and investigation and prosecution had been crossed. Looking at the matter in the round, Mr Assange passed the threshold of being wanted for prosecution.
It is clear on the extrinsic evidence that a decision has not been taken to charge him. Under the law of Sweden that decision will only be made after he has been questioned again. Under Swedish procedure, that decision is made at the conclusion of the investigation and, according to the evidence before the Senior District Judge. The defendant will then be given the right to examine all the documents relating to the case.
In our judgment, the fact that under the criminal procedure of Sweden he may be required to answer further questions before a decision is made to charge him or that the fact that the full file has not yet been provided are not decisive. The former is not an uncommon procedure on the continent and many systems do not permit access to the file until sometime after it is clear the person is accused of an offence. The fact that the Court of Appeal of Svea used the word "suspected" or that the prosecutor in her supplemental material has said he is "accused" takes the matter no further. The real question is whether the fact that it is clear that a final decision has not been made to prosecute or charge Mr Assange means that he is not "accused of the offence". The questioning is not for the mere investigation of a suspect, but to ensure that there is no proper basis for the accusation not to proceed swiftly to trial, where the focus is likely to be on what is admitted. denied or put on a different light in the answers to the questions.
We do not see why looking at the matter through cosmopolitan eyes it cannot be said that a person can be accused of an offence even though the decision has not finally been taken to prosecute or charge; Ismail makes clear one cannot simply look at the matter as a common lawyer. In our judgment Mr Assange is on the facts before this court "accused" of the four offences. There is a precise description in the EAW of what he is said to have done. The extraneous evidence shows that there has been a detailed investigation. The evidence of the complainants AA and SW is clear as to what he is said to have done as we have set out. On the basis of an intense focus on the facts he is plainly accused. That is. as Lord Steyn said, decisive.
As it is common ground that a criminal investigation about someone's conduct is not sufficient to make a person an accused, a further way of addressing this broad question is to ask whether the case against him has moved from where he can be seen only as a suspect where proof may be lacking or whether there is an accusation against him supported by proof: cf the distinction made by Lord Devlin in Hussein v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942 at 948. Plainly this is a case which has moved from suspicion to accusation supported by proof.
Although we have approached the matter by asking the broad question posed by Lord Steyn as to whether Mr Assange was accused, it was the submission of Mr Assange that the court should ask the question asked by the Divisional Court in Ismail, namely whether a step had been taken which could fairly be described as the commencement of the prosecution. It is, in our view, clear that whilst Lord Steyn approved that approach, it was not the only approach to the question of whether he was an accused. The issue was to be addressed broadly on the facts. But, even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.
In our view therefore, Mr Assange fails on the facts on this issue.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Life is too short.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)If you can't be bothered to read the facts of the case then your uninformed opinion isn't worth much.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)That kind of thing is not allowed on these boards.
As to your above reply to my post: Get to your point with a summary, perhaps a summary supported by excerpts, but not the whole fucking multi-page document. Most of us know how to Google that if we want it. I am not a lawyer paid to digest legal documents in their entirety. If you want a meaningful response from me, be a bit more concise.
Response to another_liberal (Reply #311)
Post removed
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Sweden has approximately the same legal system as Norway, and the trial without a jury is not as scandalous as your quote makes it seem. Instead of jury trials, the lower courts have trials with one professional judge and two lay judges - sometimes two professional judges and three lay judges. Should the accused be found guilty, he can on appeal, get a jury trial if the minimum sentence for his crime is over 6 years.
Now, that the lay judges are appointed directly by political parties is true, but that doesn't mean that they are insidious party robots - I have at least two such judges in my close acquaintance. One is the principal of the school where I work, and the other is the wife of my landlord, who works as a home nursing assistant. Hardly the kind of people who are in cahoots with the CIA. The assessors mentioned in your quote aren't appointed by political parties in Sweden, they are people that have finished their judicial education, and have served 4 years at a higher court while being trained as judges.
Gosh, that quote of yours have completely misunderstood the Swedish court system - I wonder what else it may have 'misunderstood'.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Convinced by the Alerter - this does appear to be victim shaming. (name redacted)
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I wouldn't do it either, but if the name is out there in the blogosphere I really don't think we should stop DUers from discussing who is involved and the evidence.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I think posting the name in the subject line is over the top.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: These young women made themselves public figures by their own choice. They are accusing someone of a crime which could, in fact, cost him his liberty and even his life. They are not somehow above the public's right to know their identities.
Juror #6 is a victim-blaming, rape culture-peddling asshole of the highest magnitude. Fuck you, Juror #6, you are a bad person.
Please alert on this post so Skinner can see what's going on here. This is the second time a post naming a rape victim has been approved of by a DU jury.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That's all I can manage right now.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Really??? Since when is rape a crime punishable by death? Especially in Sweden or the UK? Talk about hyperbole. But hey, gotta get their misogyny on every chance they get. You go, Juror #6!
xulamaude
(847 posts)My post #70 upthread:
But if she didn't want her name published then why did she report her assault to the police??? It's her fault - she should have known this would happen.
Yeah, no such thing as rape culture...
Gee, how could I have possibly known that would happen?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Getting raped isn't putting yourself in the public eye. That is really sick.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Assange's team released their names to the public because they wanted to start a smear campaign against them.
In fact, if you look up their names all the internet returns is hateful victim trashing sites.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Rape victims react differently to abuse. Just because she didn't file right away or recognize what had happened was rape does not mean that the person was not abused.
This is simple victim blaming.
The question should be "if one predicates penetration on protection being used, and penetration happens without protection being used, is it abuse?" Anyone with any rational sense knows the answer to that question.
Anna originally just wanted to force Julian to get an HIV test but the police said that she was raped and she would be advised to press charges.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The facts are not at issue.
MineralMan
(151,162 posts)Not by any means. If he is innocent, let him go and defend himself in court.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)of MIC "justice".
And yes, believe it or not, the internet is salted with MIC trolls, and deceitful authority worshiping individuals, whose intentions are to propagandize and lie whenever necessary in order to promote the interests of the MIC, and who deliberately slander whistleblowers who expose, beyond question, the malicious actions and intentions of the global Military Industrial Complex.
There's lots of people of plainly demonstrated low character out there, supporting the immoral and unethical MIC authorities and the reprehensible, sociopathic actions they engage in on a global scale.
There are a multitude of clearly guilty sexual predators running around out there. Why are you so dedicated to "bringing to justice" this particular whistleblower who is, judging from all available evidence, innocent of the allegations against him? You did not present a single shred of tangible incriminating evidence against Julian in your OP. It's nothing but hearsay that cannot be legitimately proven to be a fact in reality, especially given the 4 day time frame of continual alleged assaults.
The fast, easy, simple, absolutely perfect way to neutralize and discredit an innocent person who has blown the whistle on the wealthiest and most powerful entitiy on the planet, the global MIC.
Yes, it is a stone cold undeniable fact that people get sexually abused and raped, and the utmost serious attention needs to be paid to all allegations of sexual abuse. However, although most allegations of sexual misconduct are true, not every allegation of sexual misconduct is true.
When there is overwhelming evidence that false allegations of sexual abuse are clearly conjured up for malicious purposes in order to harm an innocent individual, these allegations must not be allowed to be used as a weapon. Making false, unprovable allegations of sexual misconduct is a quick and simple way to destroy an innocent person's life and credibility without having even a shred of evidence that the person actually did anything unethical or illegal.
Serious attention has been paid for years to the allegations against Julian Assange, and even a blind monkey can see that these allegations were brought against Julian in order to punish him for being a whistleblower against extremely powerful corporate/government entities.
Frivolous, false, allegations of sexual abuse that have no tangible evidence to back them up, and that are clearly used as weapons to harm innocent people, must not be allowed to be used as weapons.
This is the situation with Julian. It's not a matter of hero worship. It is a matter of not allowing the MIC to use its power to falsely imprison a whistleblower because they can, and because he exposed their immoral and unethical actions and intentions.
Ever wonder why Ecuador is willing to harbor Julian? It's because they are not part of the global MIC, and not playing along with its evil, anti-democratic game.
A statement from the Ecuadorean government said: "One year ago today Ecuador took the decision to award asylum to Julian Assange, a journalist who feared political persecution after publishing information sensitive to the US government that exposed war crimes, killings, torture and other human rights abuses that would otherwise never have come to light.
"After thoroughly examining the evidence, the government of Ecuador concluded that it shared Julian Assange's concerns that there is a real and present danger to his freedoms."
The statement said the recent guilty verdict against the WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning and attempts to prosecute Edward Snowden for leaking information about US surveillance underlined why Ecuador granted asylum.
It added: "The decision taken was based on Ecuadorean and international law. As article 14 of the universal declaration of human rights declares, 'everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution'.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/16/ecuador-julian-assange-asylum-anniversary
I have been raped, and I escaped another attempted rape because of intervention at the last second.
Trust me, after being raped, the furthest thing from my mind was to go back to my friendly traveling rapist and let him continue to rape me repeatedly over a 4 day span.
I detest sexual predators. But I also detest everyone, and every thing, that maliciously uses the law as a weapon to harm innocent people.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The position you express will be hurtful to some, yet it is important you stated it.
I hope everyone will take a few deep breaths before starting to call you names.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your argument is that we set up Assange in Sweden. Why would we do that in Sweden?
We only have an "OK" relationship with Sweden. We don't have much infrastructure in Sweden. The Swedish legal system is quite a bit different than the US system, making it more complicated to set him up there.
On the other hand, Assange was living in the UK at the time. The UK is our closest ally. We have tons of infrastructure in the UK. We have a very similar legal system to the UK. And the UK could have just arrested Assange for a crime in the UK instead of letting him walk around during a lengthy extradition case. And we have an extradition treaty with the UK - if we wanted to charge Assange, we could easily extradite him from the UK. They'd probably even stick a gift bow on his head.
So why Sweden?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)By Rafik Saley, Okoth Osewe, and John Goss
The question on every reasonable person’s lips is: why can’t the Swedish government “just give Mr. Assange the diplomatic guarantees that he has asked for?” In light of Sweden´s complicity in illegal rendition right up to 2006, a diplomatic guarantee to Assange that he won’t be extradited to the US is of integral importance. After all, the Swedish government has the final say in the matter and, if its past history in illegal renditions is anything to go by, Assange’s fears about extradition or rendition to the United States are justifiable.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/19/how-sweden-collaborated-with-cia-on-renditions-and-framing-of-assange/
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You're now arguing we had to extort Sweden to go along with it. Instead of using the UK who would require no extortion.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The Military Industrial Complex is a multinational, global entity, not purely a US entity.
And why Sweden?
Reported Sexual Offences
Under Swedish law, consensual sex can be classified as ’rape’. What matters is not whether the complainant said ’no’ (or implied it) but whether the perpetrator uses force or the threat of force, or he takes advantage of the victim’s helpless state.
If there is no proof of force or threat of force, the judges will consider the intent of the perpetrator. In practice this leads to many cases of ’word against word’ in which the man will have to prove his innocence. This reverses the burden of proof that is basic to criminal trials in Western legal systems, in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
http://justice4assange.com/Sexual-Offences.html
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
As for your quote, you are arguing that we found Swedish women who would lie, but we couldn't find UK women who would lie. I find this difficult to believe.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)out there, once again. No matter how many times the facts about Assange and the Accusations are documented there are always those who refuse to accept them so I think some of us just ignore or trash the "Assange is a Rapist" posts.
Thanks for keeping at it!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Thank you for doing it so well, I know it wasn't easy.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)I would take a person who claimed to have been sexually assaulted at their word.
This entire situation concerning Julian Assange appears to me to be even hokier than Don Siegelman's prosecution and conviction. I learned a long time ago, up close and personal, that justice systems are in place primarily to protect and serve the wealthy and powerful, and will become weapons of injustice, and deny justice, to innocent individuals for the greater good of the 1% when it is expedient, or when that the individual challenges or exposes the PTB.
Knowing what I know, I shake my head at the naivete of those who have this grand fairy tale notion of the supreme and infallible goodness and righteousness of state legal and justice systems.
The passing of Nelson Mandela was recently in the news. His life perfectly illustrates how the "infallibly good and righteous forces of justice" can and will do great evils and injustices to an innocent and good individual who challenges the status quo of the 1%.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You are arguing that the charges are trumped up. Why'd we have to go to Sweden to trump up charges? Couldn't we get UK women to lie, causing Assange to be immediately arrested instead of a lengthy extradition fight?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)become so common both here and in the media as well. When their guy does it, it is bad. When our guy does it, that's just the way it's always been, or that's just the best that could be done, or he's just being sensible and/or pragmatic.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Assange admits that Anna said she wanted a condom used.
Don't you consider that rape???
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts) LittleBlue
(10,362 posts) BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Clearly you haven't read the legal record. Of course these are only women's lives. Why should their basic human rights be a concern?
Assange doesn't believe he needs a woman's consent to have intercourse. Who cares if they don't want to. He's an important man and they are mere woman, according to some in this thread not even human, female dogs.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Blah blah blah you don't care blah blah blah
Recognize the difference between your point being unpersuasive and people not caring.
xulamaude
(847 posts)Blah blah blah and all that.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)BainsBane
(57,746 posts)He says he should not be held responsible because what he did is not rape in the UK. He believes himself to be above Swedish law. Sweden treats the pandemic of rape more seriously than most nations. They endeavor to create a society where men must seek consent before having sex. Is that a goal you oppose?
You say they are false because you don't believe he needs to be held account address all of your points in the OP. All you do in defending Assange is protect an accused sexual assailant. There is no principal that rests on his ability to evade those charges. I address of of this in the OP, which you clearly have not bothered to read.
The MIC excuse is a canard. Assange's continual evasion of the arrest warrant does not promote peace, freedom of information, or anti-authoritarianism. It shields an accused sexual assailant from the legal consequences of his actions. That is all.
He happens to be your favorite quarterback so you defend him. This is no different from any other case of refusing to believe victims and championing alleged rapists: whether Steubenville or anything else. Only the names differ.
You have no evidence for your position. In fact the documents I have posted prove them to be false.
That you were raped only makes your defense of him all the more shocking. Those women's lives are not less worthy than yours.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, why is not appropriate to defend the accused?
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Was it wrong for the people of Steubenville to make sure the men they so admired could operate without consequence for their behavior? Rape apology and victim shaming is wrong. It contributes to a rape culture in which few rapists are held to account for their actions and 20-25% of women and 10% of men are raped in their lifetimes. That is why. If only men people do not like are held to account for sexual assault, then women and male rape victims are deprived of their most basic human rights.
Besides, Assange does not dispute he engaged in the actions laid out in the indictment. His supporters make claims he does not. Instead Assange believes he does not need consent before compelling a woman to have intercourse. Do you support the position that women do not have the right to choose who they have sex with, that a man should be able to force himself whenever he wants?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)But, the accuser's allegations are full of holes. Which should be questioned by those not so eager to see Assange imprisoned.
Do you think, with your bias you would, or should, be allowed on a jury deciding Assange's fate.
What makes the woman's statements any more believable than Assange's?
xulamaude
(847 posts)Who, exactly, has said that they are eager to have him imprisoned?
I do believe that many of us are simply wanting him to answer the rape charges against him.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)xulamaude
(847 posts)Soundman
(297 posts)Calling the woman a "victim" is implying guilt.
xulamaude
(847 posts)I'd be a very rich woman indeed.
You thought I had NOT read the OP?
Soundman
(297 posts)Of built in bias. It's a subconscious thing you see. Otherwise one would use the term accuser, or alleged words along those lines. By the way, welcome to D.U. I can see you are going to fit right in with a certain element here.
I am pro feminist btw, just not pro shit stirring flame bait feminist. And no I am not making that accusation towards you....... Yet... Besides, who cares what I think? Pretty much nobody I'm sure.
xulamaude
(847 posts)Ah, well thanks for pointing that out.
Threats are unbecoming a gentleman you see?
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Which will not happen as long as Assange evades prosecution. I'm not sure why you say they are full of holes when Assange himself doesn't dispute the victims accounts. If you read his court documents and statements, you will see that he does not claim not to have done what the women describe.
The position of many of Assange's defenders here is he should not have to face the arrest warrant, that the women are lying "b,...es" who set him up. It's classic victim shaming. When people decide men they admire should not be held accountable for sexual assault, that invalidates the law entirely and entirely deprives rape victims and all women of their most basic human rights. I will not accept being a second class citizen because some here worship Assange, a football player, or anyone else. Nor do I have any respect for the arguments that he need not be subject to the law. Such a position is vile.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)You seem to be convinced of his guilt based only on their allegations.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And if it's a set-up, why couldn't we find women in the UK to lie? No lengthy extradition - the UK could have just arrested him.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Based on what I've read about the case.
You?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Two reasons to believe them:
1) No one has provided any reasonable motivation for lying. There's no reason to set up Assange in Sweden but not the UK. There's no profit for the women - in fact they've suffered greatly for their statements.
2) Assange said he did it in his statements to the UK court.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Call me crazy, but that's what jurisprudence is for... determining what occurred and who, if anyone, is guilty of a crime. Funny how no one seems to have a problem with people being required to go through a legal judicial process for any other allegations of a crime.
Assange ADMITTED to doing what the women allege that he did. His outrageous LEGAL argument was that what he did was not a crime in the UK which of course it is as the UK is a civilized country that makes it a crime to force or coerce any person into engaging in sex without their consent or when they are in such a state as being unable to give consent. Time and time again this has been posted here from legal documents yet Assange defenders as they have done since this story first emerged years ago refuse to acknowledge these FACTS. Just as they continued to argue that Sweden had some kind of insane law that made it illegal to have sex without a condom and that's what he was being accused of when people like myself - and there were damn few of us at the time here - continually posted the actual allegations against him from actual legal documents from the case that had nothing to do with any crazy condom law and that are CLEARLY allegations of sex without consent (ie: rape).
Bottom line, had this been anyone else whether some unknown average Joe off the street or someone known that is disliked no one would be making this absurd arguments against their having to face justice, blinding themselves to the continually repeated actual legal facts from legal documents in the case and continually trying to argue that Assange should be allowed to escape the justice system when they would never believe such a thing in any other case involving some unknown or someone disliked.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
snip---
Assange responded to news of the warrant through WikiLeaks' Twitter page, saying: "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."
The claims come as WikiLeaks prepares to release a new batch of 15,000 classified US documents related to the Afghanistan war. The Pentagon has claimed the documents could endanger US soldiers and their Afghan helpers.
Assange has been in Sweden seeking international legal protection for his website under Swedish law after WikiLeaks previously published 90,000 leaked documents about US military activities in Afghanistan covering from 2004-2010.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/22/wikileaks-julian-assange-denies-rape-allegations
Matariki
(18,775 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Where Zorra's arguments are dashed by Assange's own attorney as he attempted to explain Assange's "disturbing" sexual behavior.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and convince themselves are true, swallowing it hook, line and sinker.
This thread has been like flypaper for these toadies, they would have been on Nixon's side during Watergate and the Pentagon papers scandal -- "How dare these unpatriotic journalists release this secret info! They must be communists!"
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)for the resident crackpots who can't seem to fathom the possibility that their hero may have serious character flaws.
These threads are swarmed by the same cast of characters who see the world through the lens of conspiracy theory, and whose chronic nihilism for all-things-government is rivaled only by teabaggers, Alex Jones groupies, and Ron Paul Revolution foot soldiers.
It stands to reason that Assange's followers would construct an elaborate conspiracy theory to explain his predicament rather than accept the simple fact that his narcissistic behavior came back to bite him squarely in the ass.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)is a traitorous emotarian firebagging Snowdenite Paulista, rinse wash repeat.
Name calling is a loser game. As soon as you do it, you've already lost.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Blah blah blah...
authoritarian!1!1 blah blah blah.
Agreed.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)questions authority, and unreservedly defend the authorities they support even when they do something utterly heinous, is not name calling. It is simply labeling accurately.
Just as describing someone who frequently questions authority, or who exposes wrongdoing, as non-authoritarian, is not name calling.
Toady could be used interchangeably with sycophant, and could also be an accurate descriptor.
However, equating people who are clearly left wing with right wing individuals lke Jones or Paul, and RW organizations like the teabaggers, is definitely name calling, because it is total bullshit used to try to smear someone by identifying them with something negative that clearly has no relationship to who they are, what they do, or what they believe in.
It would be like me calling you a Trotskyite, or a communist, when that is apparently something close to the opposite of who, and what you are, judging from your past posts.
In fact, just like you apparently do, the majority of Freepers and other extreme RWers, Rush Limbaugh, for example, almost universally wish to see Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning imprisoned for the rest of their lives for exposing the heinous criminal acts of the Military Industrial Complex. I could post examples, but I'm quite sure you already know that this is true, so it would be a waste of time. And you could google it yourself, if you wish.
So it's hard to understand why you would be trying to equate us hard core anti-authoritarian lefties with extreme RWers like teabaggers, Rand and Ron Paul, and Alex Jones, when your own views on the subject of anti-authoritarian whistle blowers are so similar to the vast majority of RWers.
Yeh, so a very, very few RWers, like all lefties, believe that exposing wrongdoing by authorities is ethical, and healthy for democracy. But the majority of RWers, from teabaggers to Third Way DLC pseudo-Democrats, believe that exposing wrongdoing by authorities is a crime of the utmost serious nature. Indeed, RWers generally hate whistleblowers with a passion for exposing wrongdoing by authorities.
Just like you apparently do, judging from your past posts.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Take a breath oh righteous one.
Dial the hubris down a notch or two, I stopped reading after the first condescending paragraph.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)That contention was rejected by the High Court of Justice in his appeal against extradition, which found that the acts he stood accused of would indeed constitute rape under the laws of England and Wales.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2011/jul/13/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-hearing-day-two-live-coverage
The findings of the High Court on that issue:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)
But I did not see anywhere, in what you posted, that said that Assange admitted to having non-consensual sex.
You can infer and assume whatever you wish from that article, based on the allegations made by the plaintiffs and court ruling on the allegations, but that does not make the allegations factual.
If I willingly, without reservation, consent to share a bed with a person, and, willingly, without reservation, consent to have sex with that person, I still have the power to say "yes" or "no" to whatever act my partner wishes to perform on me. So if we're fucking several times over a period of hours, and we fall asleep, and my clearly consensual sex partner decides to kiss me, play with my breast, or put her finger inside me, while I am sleeping, and I wake up and clearly say, "no", "stop", or "I don't want you to do that", and she continues her behavior after I have said no, then yes, she is sexually assaulting/raping me.
In which case, I avoid further contact with the person who assaulted/raped me, and justifiably consider filing charges against my assailant.
If I wake up during this episode, and don't say "no", "stop", or "I don't want you to do that", then, in my worldview, I am essentially giving my consensual partner consent to continue, as long as my partner is not threatening me with force if I do not continue.
If I wake up under these circumstances, and do not say "no, "stop", or "I don't want you to do that", but after the encounter decide that this consensual partner raped or sexually assaulted me, and then consent to, and in fact do, share a room with this consensual sex partner four days later, and do not ask this person to leave, or call the police to extricate and arrest this person, who I will, within the next few days, go to the police and allege raped me, then you, and anyone else, is welcome to believe that I am not being honest.
Even when there is no slam dunk for me later getting a very lucrative book deal, or becoming wealthy by other means because of my reporting my encounter with this former consensual partner as a sexual assault.
Again. No means no, don't means don't, and stop means stop. If someone forces sex on me after I have made it clear that I do not want to have sex with them, then they are sexually assaulting/raping me.
One simple solution would be for the US to assure him that he wouldn't also be
Extradited here, period, for any wikileaks related charges.
Keep the sexual assault and wikileaks stuff totally separate, that would put a big hole in the arguments of his defenders. Seems to me.
I think this is a great idea.
The WikiLeaks founder made the surprise announcement during an anniversary interview to mark one year since he sought refuge inside the diplomatic mission.
Mr Assange believes the United States has likely already issued a sealed extradition order meaning if he left the embassy he'd be arrested by British police and taken to the US to face charges over WikiLeaks' release of classified documents.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/julian-assange-says-hell-stay-in-ecuador-embassy-even-if-sweden-drops-case/story-e6frg6nf-1226666056575
"While I remain hopeful that a diplomatic solution can be reached, or that the Swedish and US authorities will cease their pursuit of me, it remains the case that it is highly unlikely that Sweden or the UK will ever publicly say no to the US in this matter."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-will-stay-in-ecuador-embassy-even-if-sweden-sex-charges-dropped-8664500.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Ecuador_asylum_request
Since 19 June 2012, Assange lives in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he had asked for and was granted political asylum.[60] Ecuador offered to allow Swedish prosecutors to question Assange at the Embassy in London, but this was turned down by the Swedish prosecutors.[61] Assange has claimed he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States[62] but the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.[63]
Bullshit on every front.
So, come on Sweden. If this is real, and you are not full of shit, and not using this frivolous case totally as an excuse to have Julian arrested and extradited, then just do it! What have you got to lose? If you don't do this, or some similar reasonable compromise, most rational people will have no choice but to believe you are totally full of shit. Just do it! You know you can. Put up, or shut up. But, of course, Julian is already essentially imprisoned and neutralized, so there is no reason for y'all to ever bother resolving this case, is there? The MIC is very pleased with you, we're sure. Congratulations!
Waiting.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)He clearly thinks his victim has mind reading powers and telepathy while they're unconscious.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)In the filing to the UK he admits to penetrating without a condom and admits that the person in question conditioned penetration on a condom being worn.
ie, the conditions of consent were violated and Assange admitted himself as a rapist.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Feel free to take that to court.
polly7
(20,582 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)
countryjake
(8,554 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The OP has been exposed.
Bravo!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)With this post and post 143, you have destroyed and then redeemed perhaps one of the most pathetic and despicable smear job threads I have ever seen on DU.
Thank you for taking the time to counter the never-ending barrage of propaganda and disinformation.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)And I thank you, for all the time and energy you have spent in the same or similar endeavors. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated by every freedom and democracy loving DUer.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)What weirdo world must this be?
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)When was he actually charged with such offences ?
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)There is an international arrest warrant against him, the current one issued Nov. 1, 2010. I address the issue of charges in the OP, as does the UK supreme Court in the ruling linked in the OP. I suggest you read them.
Oakenshield
(628 posts)It is the one hundred and twenty fifth post in this thread. Cheers.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I have my share of disagreements with Bainbane, but her killer point here is that Assange has admitted he did exactly that of which he is accused.
I'm not sure what is left of any counter argument after that. Consider this attempt at an argument:
"Yeah, I killed the guy, but the real reason they want to prosecute me is because I am a political dissident"
Would you buy that argument?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
Would you buy that argument?
How about: "Yeah, I killed the guy, because he screamed out his hatred of me and then pulled out a gun, and I killed him in self-defense. Because I'm a political dissident, though, they're prosecuting me, trying to use a narrow interpretation of the privilege of self-defense, or using testimony from an eyewitness who'll say that the victim didn't pull a gun -- testimony that in any other case the prosecutors would consider unreliable, given all the circumstances."
I know even less about the facts of your example (given that it was hypothetical) than I do about Assange's case, but I wouldn't reject the defense argument out of hand. If I were the trial judge, I would permit the defense to introduce evidence tending to show that the defendant's political activities could, directly or indirectly, provide a motive for false testimony against him, just as I would permit the prosecution to introduce evidence to the contrary. That's what we have juries for.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Your murder justification doesn't work well at all and there is simply no justification for rape.
xulamaude
(847 posts)in your counter, but the woman who made the police report was (and is) just that, a woman.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write, "Your murder justification doesn't work well at all...." If you mean that an analogy from a murder trial can't be applied to a rape trial, one obvious answer is that you brought up murder and I was responding to your hypothetical. Another obvious answer is that there are differences but there are also similarities among all criminal prosecutions.
If you mean that the justification offered by the defendant in my hypothetical should never result in an acquittal, then are you calling for the elimination of self-defense as a valid defense to a charge of murder? Are you saying that a defendant in this circumstance should NOT be permitted to introduce evidence of political motivation for a witness against him to lie? There would be a legitimate concern with not letting the trial get too far afield into collateral matters, such as the defendant's political activism, but I think most trial judges would allow the defendant's lawyer to take at least some time to present this kind of argument, if the lawyer could make an appropriate offer of proof (telling the judge what the various witnesses would testify to, in order to show the relevance).
I agree with you that "there is simply no justification for rape," but that's begging the question.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)No charges.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You'll find that Sweden isn't a Common Law country, and charges there are filed after a formal interview is done. And the interview must be done in Sweden.
The UK high court ruled that the Swedish prosecution is past where charges would be filed in a Common Law country.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)in the event charges should be made which at present in this case is indeterminant. The fact remains that currently no charges have been brought.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Charges are filed early in the US - usually while the investigation is not complete. Charges are filed late in Sweden - usually immediately before trial.
The Swedish prosecution is past where charges would be filed in the US. But because this is Swedish law, charges have not yet been filed.
You are analyzing this situation under US law. That is not correct, because this case is under Swedish law.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)
I'm simply making a truthful statement regarding charges and give somewhat less than fig about US law for comparison - I'm English.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You might as well be talking about Assange being blond. It has the same relevance. Even your own high court said so.
As for being English, UK law and US law are similar on this. And still the wrong framework.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In Sweden, they conduct a formal interview of the suspect before filing charges. This interview must be in person, and in Sweden so that they have jurisdiction to arrest.
They are at the point of that interview, and expect to file charges unless something big comes up in the interview.
The UK high court ruled the Swedes are past the point where charges would be filed in a Common Law country (ex. UK, US).
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Extradited here, period, for any wikileaks related charges.
Keep the sexual assault and wikileaks stuff totally separate, that would put a big hole in the arguments of his defenders. Seems to me.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)but would depend on their regaining power. At least that is what this article says. 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
Why the Tories can't wok something like that out, I don't know.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Would take the wind right out of any defenses re: facing the music on the assault charges.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)I can see no constitutional basis for a charge against Assange from the US government. He's not a government worker. He's website publisher. He broke no US laws that I'm aware of.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)First, Assange hasn't broken any US law. Manning did. But Assange was free to publish the documents he got from Manning. The only way Assange could face charges would be if he bribed Manning or if he sold the documents. Neither happened.
If you want to pretend that we'd charge Assange with something, you'd have to explain why Greenwald has entered and exited the US multiple times since Snowden started leaking.
But let's say such an agreement was written. What's to prevent Assange from bribing or selling to get new leaks/funding? He couldn't be prosecuted. Make the agreement apply only to the past, and it may cover up events that haven't come to light yet.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)One, you're saying there's no reason to charge him, yet you're defending the principle to do so.
I'm suggesting that if this is REALLY about getting him to Sweden to face the assault charges, and NOT drawing him into the legal net of the US, there is probably a way to do that.
Steadfast refusal on the part of the authorities, to go there or try to figure that out, is only going to feed the people who argue that what this really is about, is the US getting him for wikileaks.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That is independent of the rest of the post.
The rest of the post is what the DoJ and other relevant agencies would be concerned about if they were to offer such immunity. It could give Assange carte blanche to break the law.
First, why is it up to the US to figure out how to prosecute him in Sweden? We aren't a formal party to this situation, and don't have a legal reason to butt ourselves in.
Second, those "really is about" people are not going to be satisfied by any immunity deal. They're either going to argue that the US would renege on the deal, or that the Swedish charges themselves are the fraud.
Such people are also steadfastly ignoring that Greenwald has come to the US multiple times since Snowden started leaking, yet has not been arrested.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think it's disingenuous to pretend, for instance, that the DOJ or US authorities "can't" provide this, that or the other assurance. Domestically, immunity is granted for all kinds of reasons, in broad as well as narrow instances. When you're talking about what "can be" done in the international arena, there are even less rules. Certainly, we've shown ourselves more than willing to bend the rules in all kinds of directions when we're looking at "extraordinary rendition" and the like.
It's not, and I don't think I suggested it was. What I did suggest- and what, as I understand it, is under US control- is whether or not he is extradited here on wikileaks related charges.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's also disingenuous to pretend I said it can't be done. My point is there are potential pitfalls. It's not clear that the benefits for the US outweigh the potential pitfalls for the US.
The topic under discussion is Assange's hiding from Swedish courts. The problem is his refusal to go to Sweden to face the charges. You are proposing the US solve this problem by offering immunity for something that isn't a crime.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)First, you refer to “rape victims” – which presupposes that Assange committed a crime, in fact multiple crimes. I don’t know if Swedish criminal law includes a presumption of innocence but you are clearly making an assumption of guilt. (It’s the flip side of assuming Assange’s innocence, which you rightly condemn.) The simple fact is that no one on DU is aware of all the evidence that might be adduced at a trial.
You can’t justify use of the term “rape victim” simply by imputing ridiculous views to Assange and to anyone who disagrees with you. (An example is when you write in #162, “Instead Assange believes he does not need consent before compelling a woman to have intercourse. Do you support the position that women do not have the right to choose who they have sex with, that a man should be able to force himself whenever he wants?” For the record, I for one do not support that position, and I’ll guess that no one on DU does.) If there is a trial, then presumably the judges (apparently no right to a jury trial) will hear Assange’s testimony, the testimony of the women involved, and the testimony of others with relevant knowledge; will make findings of fact about what happened; and will evaluate those facts under the standards of what Swedish law does and does not prohibit, including any applicable defenses.
Second, you disparage people who “blame the victim, call them liars....” While it is true, as you point out, that some men, even men we admire on other grounds, commit rape, it is also true that some women, even women we admire on other grounds, make false accusations of rape. With Assange’s case being discussed here, people are free to take note of any relevant piece of evidence. Evidence that tends to undermine the accusers’ credibility is just as valid as evidence that tends to support the opinion that Assange is guilty.
Third, with regard to Assange’s work with Wikileaks: I certainly agree with you that no one is above the law, and that it’s not a valid defense to a charge of rape (or to any criminal charge) to point out that the defendant has done good things. One can believe those things, however, yet also believe that revelations by Wikileaks have ticked off some very powerful people, who would love to see Assange in prison. (You say, “Assange's fate is entirely separate from Wikileaks. The information he helped make available to public is still there, and the website continues. Wikileaks is far more than Assange.” I respond that the people who dislike what Wikileaks does probably believe that it will do a lot less of it in the future if Assange is imprisoned, and I’ll add that I agree with them on that point.) Under those circumstances, it’s certainly reasonable to ask whether official enmity toward Assange played any role in the raising of charges against him. I haven’t studied the case in any detail, but it would be naive to ignore the possibility. Justice demands that Assange, who has exposed a lot of sordid dealings by powerful officials, not be shielded from a criminal charge on that basis, but it also demands that he not be subjected to a criminal charge on that basis.
You wrote (in #66), “Assange is an accused sexual assailant like any other.” If you mean that he shouldn’t be treated any better than others similarly situated, just because of his past heroism, I agree. If you mean that no one is allowed to even mention the possibility that he’s being treated worse than others similarly situated, then I disagree.
Finally, in what is probably a futile attempt to pre-empt responses that miss the point, let me state that I hold no opinion as to Assange’s guilt or innocence, and that, to the best of my recollection, I have never espoused any of the positions you attack in your OP.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Those people are very powerful, but couldn't find any UK women to lie for them?
If it's a set-up, why set him up in Sweden? Set him up in the UK, and the UK police can just arrest him instead of a lengthy extradition battle and time to flee to the embassy.
Yeah, hiding in the Ecuadoran embassy is really helping Wikileaks.
By the way, how come Greenwald is not in prison? Those same powerful people would want to jail him, right? Well, he's come to the US multiple times since Snowden started leaking. No messy extradition required, can just arrest him on US soil. Yet he's still free.... Almost like those powerful people aren't trumping up charges.....
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Your assumption is that all powerful people are all-powerful. This is a case where the hyphen makes a great deal of difference.
The inference that there was no high-level involvement in targeting Assange, because it would have been done earlier and/or elsewhere, is very weak. Consider:
1. My prior impression, reinforced by some comments in this thread, is that laws and attitudes in Sweden about allegations of sex crimes are different from those in most other countries, in ways that are unfavorable to the accused.
2. According to at least one post in this thread, Swedish law denies a defendant in such cases some of the rights that would be considered basic in the United States and in many other countries, such as the right to trial by jury.
3. As I understand the facts, Assange did have sex in Sweden. Maybe he didn’t have sex with anyone in the UK. In that case, maybe the answer to your question is, “That’s pretty much it, they couldn’t find anyone in the UK who could make a plausible accusation that would hold up in court for five minutes.” Alternatively, the women with whom he had sex in the UK weren’t known, or the circumstances made it beyond dispute that it was consensual.
I haven’t followed the case in detail so I don’t know what Assange has been up to while in the embassy. I don’t find it at all implausible that he’s able to do more Wikileaks-related stuff there than he would in a Swedish prison. Even if Ecuador asked him to cool it, as a condition of his sanctuary, that proves only that his hypothetical persecutors achieved their goal even without having to prove his guilt in court.
Then you ring in Greenwald and conclude, “Almost like those powerful people aren't trumping up charges.....” Right, so Greenwald is at liberty and that proves that Manning is guilty of everything she was accused of (even the charges on which she was acquitted). In fact, it proves that everyone ever targeted by the U.S. Government was actually guilty, and that the U.S. Government has never used a criminal prosecution or the threat of a criminal prosecution to counter dissidents and whistleblowers. While we’re at it, not everyone on Nixon’s enemies list went to jail, so that proves that Nixon never took any action to target his political enemies.
I don’t agree with that inference. It comes down again to those malefactors being powerful but not all-powerful. I’m sure there are plenty of people in government who would love to lock up Glenn Greenwald (or impair his reporting by causing him to stay in an embassy and never leave) if they thought they could get away with it.
By the way, in a different post (#200), I wrote, “If I were the trial judge, I would permit the defense to introduce evidence tending to show that the defendant's political activities could, directly or indirectly, provide a motive for false testimony against him, just as I would permit the prosecution to introduce evidence to the contrary.” If the defense makes an argument of political persecution, it would certainly be open to the prosecution to try to counter that with evidence and arguments along the lines of your posts. All I’m saying is that “they couldn’t find anyone in the UK to lie?” is not enough of a response to dismiss the defense out of hand. Do you agree with my statement about letting both sides make their case at trial?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Thanks for weighing in.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If it's a set-up, that is utterly irrelevant. If the charges are trumped up, there's no need for Assange to actually have sex with the false victim. Not stand up in court? Just fake some DNA tests. There are going to be windows when Assange was alone. Just claim he did it during those times. Woman's testimony + fake DNA tests and you get a conviction.
Other members of Wikileaks have begged Assange to give up control so they can get anything done. Assange has refused. His access to the outside world is significantly limited by being in the embassy.
Thanks to Assange running from Sweden.
The claim from Assange's defenders is the US is trying to silence him. Snowden's leaks are far more damaging than Manning's leaks. Therefore, those same people in the US would be very interested in silencing Greenwald. So if these powerful people set up Assange, why aren't they setting up Greenwald? If Assange would face prosecution in the US for publishing classified documents, why isn't Greenwald facing those same charges?
So they are powerful enough to set up Assange in Sweden as part of a very large and complex international conspiracy in order to charge Assange in the US. But they aren't powerful enough to skip that "large and complex international conspiracy" part and just arrest Greenwald while he's in the US?
You do realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?
If Assange has any evidence beyond innuendo. So far, that's all Assange has provided.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Your comments fall into two categories: your continued assumption of the omnipotence of official malefactors, and your arguments concerning points about which you feel deeply but about which I didn’t comment at all, and which are irrelevant to the subject that I’m addressing.
You begin by skipping over my first two points, as to why an operation against Assange might be done more readily in Sweden than elsewhere. As to my third point, you answer that, if it’s a set-up, the facts are irrelevant. Your all-powerful officials could just find a lying “victim” (who never actually had sex with Assange) and find a lying scientist to falsify DNA test results and find the additional lying witnesses who’d be needed to establish the chain of custody of the sample. My view remains that people out to get Assange might be unable to pull off all that but might be able to exploit an opportunity that arose that required much less manipulation. They could find a woman who had consensual sex and get her to say it was nonconsensual; alternatively, if there’s a woman who had a legitimate case under Swedish law but had decided not to pursue it, they could induce her to change her mind and press charges. (Note that in the latter instance it would be true both that Assange was guilty (because a victim’s motivation for coming forward isn’t normally relevant to guilt or innocence) and that there was undisclosed official involvement in causing the case to be brought.)
Your next two arguments are that, from the point of view of maintaining the effectiveness of Wikileaks, Assange has acted imprudently. The point of my post was not to defend every decision Assange has made; it was instead to say that we should not rule out the possibility of an official plot to impair his work.
Next you ask, “So if these powerful people set up Assange, why aren't they setting up Greenwald?” It’s quite possible that they found a target of opportunity concerning Assange but that nothing similar has surfaced to let them get Greenwald.
In attacking my hypothesis about people who are powerful but not omnipotent, you write:
So they are powerful enough to set up Assange in Sweden as part of a very large and complex international conspiracy in order to charge Assange in the US. But they aren't powerful enough to skip that "large and complex international conspiracy" part and just arrest Greenwald while he's in the US?
Although their ideal outcome might be to get Assange to the U.S., they would also do quite well (from their point of view) by either sticking him in a Swedish prison or panicking him into effectively placing himself under house arrest in an embassy. In any of those three situations, he’s less able to continue publishing revelations that discomfit powerful officials. Mission accomplished, if I may borrow a phrase. And, right, they can’t “just arrest Greenwald while he’s in the US.” Our courts do sometimes protect the rights of the accused, even those who are deemed enemies of the state. See, to take the first example that pops into my head, the Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, holding that the Bush administration acted illegally in capturing and imprisoning an alleged enemy combatant without giving him “a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.” As a result, Hamdi was released and deported.
If you think my scenario makes no sense, you must believe that Hamdi is still at Gitmo. The rest of the world believes that he went back to Saudi Arabia.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Not at all.
The claim is these malefactors were able to orchestrate a very large and complex international conspiracy against Assange. That takes a lot of power. Far more power than to just arrest Greenwald in the US.
If they have the power to set up Assange, they would have plenty of power to set up Greenwald.
Nope. I addressed those by pointing out Assange didn't actually have to sleep with anyone to be set up.
If the charges are false, there's no need to shop for a place where your charges are criminal. You are making up the charges, so make up charges that are illegal in the country where you want your target arrested.
No, there's no need to find someone to lie about the chain of custody. The samples would follow the proper chain of custody. What your lab tech would do is put the sample from Assange in both the "Assange" and "unknown" lanes on the gel, resulting in a match.
How hard would that be? Well, first you are claiming that this conspiracy already lined up women to lie. In another country. That's not at all easy. Bribing a lab tech? Not all that hard either - there's been a host of scandals recently where the lab tech didn't even receive any money for fixing cases.
And that still ignores the Greenwald angle: You are claiming the US-based conspiracy is powerful enough to set up Assange in Sweden while he is living in the UK, but not powerful enough to get Greenwald while he is in the US.
So they couldn't get someone to lie, except for where they got someone to lie.
So...should Assange get away with it in this scenario?
So they're a US-based group powerful enough to exploit a target of opportunity in Sweden with a target living in the UK, but are not powerful enough to create an opportunity in the US.
That's like saying they're rich enough to buy a Ferrari in Italy, but don't have enough money to buy a Ford in Detroit.
Which would also apply to Greenwald. A US trial would take time, and put him out of comission for quite a while. So if the goal was to intimidate and temporarily silence, false charges would be quite sufficient. Greenwald would be in US prison for about a year pending trial - it's not that hard for prosecutors to delay the trial for quite a while, and Greenwald could be easily labeled a flight risk.
How long was Hamdi at Gitmo? Years. Would work pretty well if the goal was to silence a critic for a while, no?
So your claim is the goal is to temporarily silence a critic via criminal charges, but that a US conspiracy has enough power to exploit a Swedish victim and Swedish prosecutor but doesn't have the power to exploit a US prosecutor, and can not find a US person to make false claims against Greenwald.
Response to Jim Lane (Reply #190)
Hissyspit This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(318,746 posts)Assange and just why he has an arrest warrant out on him in Sweden.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Post #125 has the facts.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)As you've seen by now, for most participants in these Assange threads, it's long since passed the "monkeys flinging poo" stage, but the case has been out of the news for awhile. So hopefully, you'll at least arm some newcomers to the issue against the flood of "Lol, why does Sweden refuse to charge him" posts. I read the judgment of the extradition court around the time he entered the embassy, and it really clears up a lot of the myths swirling around Assange's legal status, but people would rather rant about the NWO/MIC/Illuminati/whatever than read dry boring court documents.
And for those of you upthread lecturing us about presumption of innocence, keep in mind that:
1. We're not judges, jury, lawyers or reporters connected to this case, so we are free to draw whatever conclusions we want.
2. Assange himself is the only impediment to clearing his name. His refusal to face trial certainly colors my perception of his guilt vs. innocence
3. As has been pointed out in this thread and others, Assange didn't really dispute the allegations against him in the extradition trial, just that they didn't pass muster as rape charges in the UK and thus the extradition order wasn't valid. The allegations are the bolded part of OP's post. #3 is the only one that doesn't look like unambiguous rape to me, and even it looks more than worthy of some lesser sexual misconduct charge.
4. Assange forfeited somewhere north of $300,000 of other people's money when he jumped bail. I just don't have a hard time believing that someone displaying this level of callous narcissism and entitlement would be capable of rape.
xulamaude
(847 posts)Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Forfeiting bail money in an asylum case is equivalent to being capable of rape.
If I am ever accused of anything, please do not be on my jury.
1. True. So are lynch mobs. Presumption of innocence is not a useful concept in everyday life?
2. You conveniently ignore the basis of Assange's asylum request as an assist to allow your perception to be colored.
3. As has also been pointed out in this thread and others, Assange has denied the charges, and was making legal defense arguments in the extradition trial, not admissions of guilt.
But, 4. Yikes.
Don't be surprised if I question your judgment of the value of the OP.
Here's a good one you might read:
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/09/03/mythology-omitted-truths-in-the-medias-coverage-of-julian-assange
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)argue that he was innocent. In post 301, above, you can read how Assange's attorney tried to explain his client's "disturbing" acts to the court.
The point you seem to be missing is that Assange didn't dispute that the acts alleged in warrant took place..he merely disputes that they constitute a criminal offence.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)too important to face charges of sexual assault? Or do you rape victims deserve to have their allegations heard, and that no one should be above the law, even someone who has made a great contribution to public knowledge like Julian Assange?"
No, it's not.
Response to Hissyspit (Reply #237)
Cali_Democrat This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)should be ashamed of themselves. This guy referred to one of his accusers as a b*tch.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Such accusations do absolutely nothing to further substantive discussions. There are many people who are convinced the evidence against Assange is complete shit. It's also important to remember that Assange has never been charged with sexual assault. The arrest warrant is to secure Assange for questioning, which he has already submitted to in person in Sweden. If Assange steps foot on Swedish soil again there's plenty of reason to believe he would be whisked away to the US to share a cell with Chelsea Manning and that is the exact pretense Sweden is using to secure him. Now you may not agree with these things, but labeling those who do as rape apologists is pretty weak intellectually.
Just sayin'
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)How you describe posts talking about rape victims as lying "b . . .s who set him up."
Your rendition of events is proven factually false by the linked documents. Try reading them. You haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with the most basic facts of the case. Nor have you read my OP with counters every one of your claims which do not hold water.
Making excuses for why an accused sexual assailant shouldn't stand charges is what if not rape apology? How is it any different from Steubenville or any other case? In some cases people insist women lie to make up charges against football players, here they insist they are lying to impugn a great man they see as too important to be held to the law. In both cases, the alleged assailants defenders ignore the facts, in this case after repeatedly being shown documentation showing their depiction of events is false. You could read the linked UK Supreme Court ruling to find out the actual status of the case, yet you refuse to do so. Why?
I don't label anyone as anything, but to pretend that what is not happening here is exactly what people are saying: that the women trumped up charges (even though Assange himself doesn't make that claim), and smearing anyone who suggests Assange be treated like any other accused person as authoritarian and a stooge for the military industrial complex and corporate America, invoking false claims long disproved and ignoring the actual record is what it is: It blames victims and seek to keep an alleged sexual assailant from justice. That is the exactly what is happening here. To pretend otherwise is absurd.
If people are going to work so diligently to shield an accused rapist from justice and actively shame his victims, that is obvious for anyone to see. You would prefer the apology go unchallenged. I refuse. I refuse to treat victims of sexual assault as subhuman, without the most basic rights, and I have nothing but contempt for efforts to do so. People are free to advance any position they choose, and in doing so they reveal exactly who they are.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)More of your slanderous shit.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Watch Julian take credit for giving and comfort to the climate change deniers a.k.a. BP-Exxon-Shell:
I still can't figure out why a Libertarian schmuck who fronts an outfit peddling stolen intel to Neocons gets any love at all on DU.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... for the NSA and other MIC/police/surveillance state agencies give any love at all on DU.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)I can't help thinking they'd be happier elsewhere, like at the Daily Paul, but I guess there's no accounting for taste.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)You just ignore it or reframe it.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Rather than where they are shamed in order to defend the favorite quarterback?
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Instead of automatically being assumed they are guilty simply due to the nature of what they've been accused of?
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)which Assange is evading. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean someone gets to evade the law in perpetuity. It means he is presumed innocent until a COURT proves him guilty, which can't take place when the accused is on the lamb. (For purposes of argument we'll assume that is indeed the Swedish legal standard). Additionally, courts can use his flight from prosecution as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
You still haven't addressed your clear and grievous mistake that you thought the legal proceedings in the UK were to extradite Assange to the US, when they were in fact to extradite him in compliance with an International Arrest warrant for sexual assault in Sweden. Why is that? Are you unable to admit you were wrong?
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)
This case has many complications.
Where did I say I thought the UK court proceedings were to extradite him to the U.S. What are you talking about?
Do you forget that I'm the poster who originally posted most of the developments in this case as they happened?
Would you like to address your continued insistence that this case is thoroughly analogous to Steubenville when there are many clear differences?
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)who are susceptible to their fascist propaganda.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)More false slanderous talking points from you.
But that's all you ever have, isn't it?
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Not only is Julian trying to mealy-mouth his way out of helping to sandbag the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks, leading to the failure of Obama's well-thought out international climate initiative, he's also misrepresenting his role, which was basically to "lend" ($cough cough$) the name of his organization to somebody else's hack-'n'-swiftboat job.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)No one else had any role.
Giving comfort to the climate deniers is deliberate misrepresentation on your part.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)As for giving aid and comfort to the climate change swiftboaters, he admits it in the video.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)And, no, it doesn't particularly bother me WikiLeaks played a role. I would have preferred the mainstream media and the rest of the world not misrepresent the information.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Blaming the media doesn't cut it. I would have preferred they hadn't run the SBVT lies in 2008, but that doesn't relieve the swiftboat vets from complicity in sinking Kerry. They knew damn well what they were doing and so did Assange. And he admits he knew it when he released the hacked CRU email days before the Copenhagen conference started. The questioner points it out and he answers "Absolutely." Listen to it again if you missed it.
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)And you again completely misrepresent what he's saying.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The media took the ENTIRE DUMP out of context and climate science has been immeasurably damaged because of it. Climate change has taken a backseat in the past few years. No one even gives a shit that the most catastrophic event in human history is about to happen all because of "climate gate."
Between the NSA and Cables the climate dump was the most damaging release of information to a given side than anything, ever. And guess which side it hurt the most? The left.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)That is fucking goddamn appalling.
"these scientists had been conspiring to evade the freedom of information act in the UK" <- bullshit lies
"
the media) did take some things out of context" <- fair enough
Then Assange goes on to say "we had no choice, we release everything."
How about the Russia files, Assange?
How about the BoA files, Assange?
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)This was back when Assange was the hot new source and Wikileaks was on everyone's lips including Rush Limbaugh's. But people hear what they want to hear, like the audience in this video. Go figure.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It is disgusting, to be sure. I am not a fan of Wikileaks.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)ucrdem
(15,720 posts)These two were made for each other:
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 02:34 AM - Edit history (2)
Wikileaks on "Climategate"
Uploaded on Jul 8, 2010
... Fight with the truth
Skewed and partial e-mails do not disprove anthropogenic climate change.
Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies sums it up:
"There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research ... no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from shadowy socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
No minds were changed there. Always suspect these meetings with lapdog listeners, though. I didn't elect these characters and they cannot be held to account for anything they do, they either naively or purposefully promote propaganda. At this time, it is paid by the Koch brothers, extreme right billionaires and are corporatist. They play upon the lower societal groups who can be homophobic, misogynist and/or racist.
As to the second video, I didn't watch it until today. Just the image of the two made me sick. The fascist Paul family, like Dick Armey and the rest, and their financial backers the Koch brothers, should give anyone pause. RP is loving on Asssange, who is off into this own little world, not responding to Paul in slogans, which is a plus.
Assange comes off well in all these videos. explaining things in a philosophical fashion. He is remote as the end result of what Paul and Libertarians plan to do will NOT effect him personally.
Paul's running buddies in the Tea Party are killing people with their state by state actions and likely using Assange to screw with the Democrats. Note that Paul has a definite bias, his voice turning sour as he says 'even progressives' which is the same as any GOPher, from Rush to Beck to O'Reilly, and would have had a stroke if he had to say 'Democrats, liberals, socialists and communists are good people, too' a hundred times. It's their version of the Nazi attitude on Jews, same inflection.
The Pauls and the Koches are intent on laissez faire capitalist rule, dismantling the social contract, and rule by the few. Anyone on RPTV, is suspect as they are firmly against civil rights for us lesser folks.
I am more than capable of seeing an ideal separate from a personality. But a further look to the effects than is expressed idealistically is required. One must actually THINK. One has to go around slogans and presentation and realize how this stuff shakes out in real life and not in media.
Ensnaring some by getting them all starry eyed about liberty, freedom and the Constitution is like shooting fish in a barrel. The Tea Party and Paulites don't believe in anything but the free market and put a dollar sign on everything.
This is immoral and it cannot be defined thus and have a good end. When they talk about government, welfare, debt and dependency, I'll tell them: Deficit, my ass.
The video posted, has many parts and I watched them all:
Julian Assange talks to Ron Paul
The comments section are quite revealing of this cult and their power to bring up ideas which concern everyone. But their actions, and those of Assange's party in Australia, betray the lofty words with their harsh treatment of women, the poor and minorities, and their rabid free marketeering.
They don't support labor rights, which is how the poor stop being used as scapegoats and pawns and get a measure of political clout. They represent the plutocracy and most of us will not be protected.
A look at Rand's voting record and the legislation he's pushed, which he has held the nation hostage over is totally against the poor, women, gays, labor and the environment.
They want the USA gone, and we are just collateral damage while they divide us up into Koch brothers style kingdoms. It will be a very. ugly and brutal world order for most. I suggest a read of David Sirota's piece here to know what their ideas are backing, as there is never a vacuum in power:
When “free” trade trumps U.S. law
...When it comes to “free” trade, Ralph Nader (among others) often makes a profound but taboo observation: “True free trade would take only one page for a trade agreement,” he says before typically asking, “How come there are hundreds of pages and thousands of regulations” in these pacts?
The answer is that so-called free trade agreements (i.e., NAFTA, bilateral NAFTA replicas, the WTO regime, etc.) are free only of protections for human beings — that is, free of provisions that preserve, say, labor rights, human rights and the environment. But those deals’ “hundreds of pages” are chock-full of protectionist provisions for multinational companies — provisions that, for example, allow foreign firms to sue governments for lost profits and empower international panels to unilaterally override a nation’s domestic laws if those laws reduce corporate revenues...
For example, will foreign oil/gas drilling companies operating in the United States be able to cite this precedent to overturn American laws that restrict the environmentally questionable practice of hydraulic fracking? Will multinational agribusiness firms be able to cite the precedent to invalidate recent food safety legislation? And what about Chinese durable manufacturers selling into the American market — will they be able to cite the precedent to overturn a recent statute banning child products that contain too much lead?
The fact that such questions need to be asked is an indictment of both the “free” trade label and the underlying agreements themselves...
http://www.salon.com/2011/05/24/free_trade_corporations/
The Paulites and other libertarians Assange says are correct, have this thing about national soveriegnty, but when I said to THINK, this is what I mean.
Their free market philosophy strips the living of any rights. Makes the entire planet a market for those positioned to take advantage of other humans. Their freedom and liberty, thus do not extend to others not so situated, and is the reason they seek wealth no matter how garnered, or who is destroyed, to survive in their dystopia that does not even value them, but only their money.
The Tea Party and Paulites who think they will get a chance to rise in that society with any form of morals, Bill of Rights or an edited Constitutional government, are supporting those who intend to bypass all of that as antique.
They are fools to think they can have both at the same time, the same as those who think they can maintain their rights while denying them to anyone else they call worthless.
Nordquist said they have a plan to rewrite America in the image they want, disavowing the protections they say they are fighting to protect under the laws of the USA. Any support of Paul is like voting for ALEC, Palin, Bachmann, the Walkers, Scotts, Christies to rule our lives in the most intimate ways.
People haven't truly had the full experience of what they have planned, can and do go batshit over this or that, but that feudal system they pretend won't be part of their life, will be in force the rest of our lives and generations after. There has been a lot written about the covert funding fo fhese groups, and here is an SPLC article about the founder of the Oathkeepers:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/oath-keepers-heart-snowden
About the Oathkeepers, and their part in our nation's politics:
Oath Keepers Rally Reveals Radical Politics of Group
By Ryan Lenz on July 25, 2013
...There will be seminars on Agenda 21, a United Nations sustainability plan that has no legal enforcement mechanisms or requirements, but that the radical right is convinced is a secret plot to impose socialism on the United States.
There will be representatives from the John Birch Society — a primary proponent of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, the idea that fluoridation of water is a Communist plot, and the charge that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Communist agent. Also scheduled to attend are Sheriff Richard Mack, a long-time darling of the antigovernment “Patriot” movement who has been encouraging county sheriffs to resist federal gun laws, and Chuck Baldwin, a far-right pastor and “constitutionalist” who moved to Montana several years ago to battle the incursions of the federal government...
Most recently, Mark Kessler, a self-described Oath Keeper and police chief in tiny Gilberton, Penn., formed a paramilitary militia group called the Constitutional Security Force to fight against proposed gun control legislation. Few knew of it until this week, when Kessler posted a profanity-laced video online that got wide attention. “Fuck all you lib-tards out there,” a heavily armed Kessler says in the video. “As a matter of fact, read my shirt,” he says, turning around to show the camera a T-shirt printed with the words, “Liberals take it in the ass.”
Rhodes has shown his paranoia about a coming dictatorship, or loss of freedom, before. Two years ago, he moved to Montana to be part of an “American Redoubt” to make a kind of last-ditch defense of the Constitution. Now, with his latest set of friends in Idaho, he seems to have gone even further to the extreme right...
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/07/25/oath-keepers-rally-reveals-radical-politics-of-group/
This is why they SAY government must be disbanded, but they would allow corporatists or theocrats to take its place.
Transparency? Privacy? No such things with undemocratic groups that run on such heirarhies. They will kill the mind and body. I've read stories that claim it would take thousands of years to overturn what they have laid out, and by then, who knows what humanity will be doing to each other and the planet by then.
The freedom we take for granted from progressive legislation will be a distant memory, but more than likely, forbidden knowledge if not forgotten. Not all revolutions, like the RP one, have a happy ending.
Okay
and I must get some coffee as I am not fully awake after having had a bad night.
EDITed to clarify.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Whatever they say, what they want is carte blanche to loot the planet and hoard their gold. And when you get down to it the behavior discussed in the OP is entirely consistent with this philosophy.
JI7
(93,546 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)way of the dinosaur.
He was very smart in enlisting very intelligent people to participate and run with him. But in the end, bringing smart people on board was his downfall as well because as soon as they realized what they were dealing with, they couldn't bail fast enough.
But smart Assange supporters doesn't seem to be an issue on DU.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Good information to know.
Warpy
(114,577 posts)in a lot of countries, worldwide. Another is that the alleged victim seems to have been paid to make them and stick to them. Another is the timing. It's just too convenient.
I don't think anyone can make the case for any poster supporting rape by recognizing these three problems with the charges against him.
BainsBane
(57,746 posts)The assaults took place in Sweden. They enforce their laws, no one else's. It may not be considered rape elsewhere, but it certainly would be sexual assault of some degree. Sweden has taken an active approach to try and curtail rape and consider women as full human beings whose civil rights matter.
Your second paragraph is wrong. There is a legal arrest warrant. Assange is evading arrest. What you or anyone else happens to think of the charges is irrelevant. People can think the issue of consent is entirely irrelevant. They can believe that once a woman has given consent she can never revoke it, that she exists in a natural state of consent. It doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make it legal--anywhere. People are rallying around an accused rapist and calling his victims liars. You don't think the people in Steubenville has issues with the victims stories? That is ALWAYS the case when accused rapists are defended and their victims attacked. That you think the excuses here legitimate is meaningless. Making excuses for his not complying with a valid arrest warrant based on probable cause is the issue.
It's really quite basic. Do you believe some people to be too important to face legal allegations of sexual assault, or do you believe all rape victims, even women, have basic human rights that include facing their alleged assailant in court.
Anything besides that is an excuse and how people have chosen to defend this particular accused rapist. Members here have made quite clear what their position on that fundamental issue is.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)For my part, I'm not a defender of Assange, I'm a defender of civil liberties. The difference between "rapist" and "accused rapist" may seem trivial or hypertechnical to some people, but to many of us it's very important.
One aspect of this enormous thread still concerns me, though. You write:
That passage leaves me with the impression that you believe it is never appropriate to question the statements of a woman who brings an accusation of rape. Is that your belief?
We can presumably all agree that there have been instances (probably fewer now than a few decades ago but still too many) in which people went too far in questioning such statements, to the point of virtually presuming the women to be liars. That unpleasant truth doesn't justify going too fair in the opposite direction, though. It's always open to the defense to try to undermine the accusers' credibility, just as it's always open to the prosecution to try to discredit the defendant's denials.
Of course, both sides are restricted by the rules of evidence. Those rules balance probative value against possible prejudice. That's why, for example, a defendant is generally not permitted to introduce evidence about an accuser's past sexual conduct in an attempt to portray her as promiscuous.
Putting aside the specifics of the Assange case and the Steubenville case, do you believe that accusations of rape are always accurate, or are you willing to admit the possibility that women sometimes lie or make honest mistakes?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)He said it seems that way, and it may be true. The evidence for this possibility is contained in the Belmarsh decision so it is not completely without merit unless Assange's lawyer blatantly perjured himself. The prosecution is in possession of this evidence as well.
(emphasis mine)
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That is a direct quote from post number 353. Warpy did write that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4171227
You seem to have a very difficult time properly citing things.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)His quote:
Your quote:
From the standpoint of full literacy when one qualifies a statement with "seems", this means that they are allowing for alternate possibilities.
seem
verb (used without object)
1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc.: She seems better this morning.
In other words, the poster is saying it appears as if the victim is being paid. The poster is not saying the victim was paid which was your claim. The Belmarsh decision (the only one you seem to think is relevant) alludes to a profit motive on behalf of the alleged victims, so it's not as if this is completely without merit from statements that are not in evidence.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)you might want to read up on The Striesand Effect.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Seems =/ was
It doesn't get much simpler. This is round hole, round peg stuff.
I gave you the quotes and explained in great detail how your claim did not match his. Pretending this is about something it's not does not help your argument. It just shows you are disingenuous and have no interest in good faith discussion.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)post...the better.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Note the utter victim shaming---the repeat of the utter lie that that the victim was paid.
You do understand the fallacy of strawman rhetoric, counselor?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and tell us which countries you think these acts would not be sex crimes. Of the four allegations, are you telling me there isn't a single act that would be an offense? Part of the judgment at Belmarsh dealt with the fact that under UK law--all four allegations of the warrant were crimes in the UK.
Second--your allegation that a victim was paid is disgusting, and supported only by the lies of a Wikileaks employee, Israel Shamir. You should read upthread, or just google his anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying ass before you accept information from him.
So, I challenge you two things--
1) Tell us which specific allegation you think isn't a crime.
2) Find a credible source for your allegation that one victim was paid.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)some people can't accept different view points.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)He's getting paid by Sweden. He's a failed politician who is infamous for providing an incompetent defense of an accused murderer. When faced with the question that the accused themselves didn't consider what happened to them as rape, his tweeted reply was:
In other words, here is a man telling women they aren't smart enough to figure out if they have been raped or not. Only lawyers can decide. He also said all men are responsible for violence against women. One can only wonder what Sweden is paying him for this brilliance. He billed Sweden a half million for doing pretty much nothing to defend Sture Bergwall who was convicted of multiple murders, then later acquitted of all charges.