WikiLeaks 'rape' victims had hidden agendas ... and I've seen the proof says Julian Assange's lawyer

[Lars77]

Source: Daily Mail

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s lawyer says he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistleblower is innocent of rape claims made against him by two women in Stockholm.

Björn Hurtig, who is representing Mr Assange in Sweden, said the papers, which form part of the official Swedish investigation, reveal both women had ‘hidden agendas’ and lied about being coerced into having sex with Mr Assange, 39.

The freedom of information crusader is being held in Wandsworth jail in London while fighting extradition to face the accusations, which his defenders say are part of a plot to stop him releasing more embarrassing information on his website about governments worldwide.

Australian Mr Assange met both women at a seminar in Stockholm last August. After having intercourse with each, at different times, he faced sex charges – which he strenuously denies – that were withdrawn and then reinstated.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[DJ13]

2. I think the charges were just so they could get him into custody

A stalling tactic to give another government (US?) time to stir up equally bogus charges relating to espionage or something else.

[14thColony]

3. I fear you're right; that's what it seems to be

And if he ends up in the U.S. I doubt he'll get anything resembling a fair trial, if he even gets a trial.

[ProudDad]

36. He'd never get to USAmerica...

If he's extradited to Sweden, they'd almost immediately 'render' him unto the Empire...

Once USAmerica gets him in their clutches he will be classed as an "enemy combatant" and flown directly so Gitmo or another black site somewhere...

Never to be heard from again...

[Capitalocracy]

68. I think he's too famous at this point to make him disappear

All their efforts to smear him will be for naught if he becomes a martyr now. I think they'll continue to try to smear him, maybe a kangaroo trial and then locked up with no contact with the outside world at a Supermax, throw away the key. I actually think we need to start getting out on the street and making it clear we don't want that to happen.

[JDPriestly]

107. I think that the backlash for the sort of actions you suggest, ProudDad

would be too great.

It's just my intuition, but I suspect that Wikileaks is just the first of many such outings of private secrets.

After all, it is only in the past twenty-five or so years that we have had a clear view of the sexual escapades of our prominent politicians and religious leaders. It has been a shock but we have survived it.

This goes a little deeper. Remember Nixon. That was the beginning of the time of openness. We may lurch forward and teeter backward in this movement toward openness and the free flow of information, but it will not end.

We are going through a time of social and spiritual awakening. We either go through this or our species will end in disaster.

As someone pointed out on KPFK recently, the Wikileaks have shown us that governments among themselves speak pretty honestly. They mostly only lie to their citizens. That, of course, will change. It's just the course of history.

[zeemike]

5. I think you are right about that.

My guess is that he will never be free again unless he is dead.

[MissDeeds]

25. That is my thought as well

Using the allegation, if unjustified, is an affront to everyone who has experienced the horrific crime of rape.

[caseymoz]

59. Also, I think the charges were calculated to divide the left against him.

I mean, what other charges could do this except sex crime charges?

[Capitalocracy]

69. Seems they've been pretty successful. nt

[caseymoz]

140. I don't know.

But it would seem to me that would be the main calculation to try to isolate Assange and WikiLeaks.

[No Elephants]

84. .How very RW to use sex crimes (if that's what happened).

O'keefe already used pimping underage white slave prostitutes.

That didn't leave much..

[caseymoz]

139. I'm sure that's what the calculation was.

Plus, they thought they could get a warrant before this current release.

[NashVegas]

125. Really? Which Left Is That?

The one that talked about one female POTUS candidate's "cankles" and even worse sexist-attacks on batshit-crazy Palin?

No wonder it's not working ...

[caseymoz]

138. I'm lost.

What are you talking about?

[Honeycombe8]

102. And your evidence is....?????? OTOH, there is evidence of rape...

or whatever the Swedish government calls rape.

Interesting that all Assange had to do to avoid the charges is submit to an STD test, but he refused. He refused? HE REFUSED? Why on earth would he refuse? Hmmmmmmm.

Is this what you thought when the Duke LaCrosse players had rape allegations made against them? Was your first thought that the "victim" was lying and had an ulterior motive? I'm going to guess that you thought they were guilty because the "victim" was poor, the Duke guys were rich, and you didn't like the accused. NOW, you like the accused.

Thank goodness the law has nothing to do with whether you like the victim or the accused. It's based on facts.

Fact: Sworn oaths have been taken by police. Assange has refused to submit to STD tests, per a deal offered by the "victims." There is no evidence of any lying by the victims. (No, statements by the legal counsel of the accused is not evidence. If he has evidence...let's see it.)

[Wednesdays]

105. What, specifically, is the charge against him?

:shrug:

If it's rape (meaning coerced sex), how did that exactly play out?

[JDPriestly]

109. What is your source for the statement that "all Assange had to do to

avoid the charges is submit to an STD test"?

I realize that the women state that they made their claim because they were worried about STD. Are you sure that taking an STD test would cause the government to drop the charges?

If they women had contracted STDs, wouldn't they have taken tests? Wouldn't they know by now?

I haven't heard any claim that the women contracted STDs or tested positive for anything.

I doubt that Swedish law provides that rape charges can be dropped if a person takes a test for STDs. That sounds odd to me. Do you have a source for your statement?

[tpsbmam]

116. Not only that but the STD could come from someone else....taking a test for

an STD is pointless.

[davidthegnome]

121. There is no conclusive evidence

which indicates that he did rape them. I believe that in Sweden one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, much like it is supposed to be here.

So until there is some firm evidence that suggests he is guilty of rape, why not think him innocent? It will ultimately not be up to the public to decide - it is decided in a court of law, or has that changed? Were I on his jury I would attempt to be as neutral as possible - but I am not and therefor free to speak my mind as I see fit. Either way, I have yet to see any evidence that this man did anything wrong or illegal. While, on the other hand, both of his accusers seem to have questionable credibility as proven by the charges, the withdrawal - and yet again pressing charges. But it is not that alone - why would one of these women boast of bedding him? There are things that simply do not add up in this case.

Frankly, as a person, I do not know the accused and it's not really my concern what happens to him. I admire his actions on a more professional level - revealing truths which governments wish to keep hidden. Do you truly think it's far fetched to suspect a conspiracy here? The talking heads on the media are calling for his death, politicians are calling for his execution, the vast majority of the right wing no doubt does likewise - even some democrats. Perhaps it was decided that it would be easier to imprison him on trumped up charges instead, it would not be the first time that has happened.

I am not completely convinced of his innocence, but I strongly suspect this of being a setup. If there's anything the last ten years have taught me, it's that the powers that be will go to great lengths to cover up the truth - somehow I do not believe they would hesitate to frame this man or even murder him if they thought it prudent.

[northzax]

129. well sure

decided in a court of law is the right way to go about it. and since Mr. Assange is innocent, he will waive extradition, produce these secret documents and walk out of the courtroom vindicated, right?

I find that people with evidence proving their innocence often look forward to a trial to clear their name. why fight it? after all, there is almost never 'conclusive evidence' of a rape. it's almost always one person's word against another. 'he raped me' 'she wanted it'

[backtomn]

122. Where are the "women's advocates" at DU ???

If evidence exists that the women are lying......great.....bring it out and end this charade. However, why do we attack these women, with nothing to go on?? This should all shake itself out and we should wait for some facts. If the defense has facts, then we should be hearing them immediately (unless Assange's lawyer is just blowing smoke).

I don't know anything about STD tests or if Assange should even take them......but it is entirely too easy to jump the gun here. I am just surprised that people here are jumping toward the alleged perpetrator and not the victims. This seems a bit weird.....unless you consider politics.

Politics may be an issue in the arrest (I can hear the responses before they come), but there are less facts on that then on Assange. So.....I will wait to pass judgement.

Focus on the facts of the leaks, not the leaker.

[ooglymoogly]

128. Because most of the women on this site have common sense

and can smell a rat in a pile of shit when it is passed off as oh so convenient evidence on a person who does not fit this ridiculous profile.

[northzax]

130. so now rapists fit a profile

exactly what is that profile? so I know which women to believe in the future?

[ooglymoogly]

131. My god are you corny. nt

[northzax]

134. you're the one profiling accused rapists

and deciding who's obviously innocent because of their profile. rather be corny than whatever that is.

[ooglymoogly]

127. Do we really have to suffer this batshit propaganda on this site of all places. nt

[robinlynne]

114. exactly.

[valerief]

4. Cheney will come out of hiding for Torture Time now. nt

[sabrina 1]

83. Cheney will have to remain in this country in his undisclosed location.

Interpol will be receiving, if they have not already, an arrest warrant for him also, on charges of bribery in Nigeria. It is a serious charge and will have to be answered.

So for now, he may have his own problems with Interpol, arrest warrants etc. It's beginning to catch up with them.

[pam4water]

6. Did the women have a hidden agenda or did the government lock on to them once they came forward. May

never know.

[crikkett]

95. One has absconded to Palestine, the other is in hiding

"we" knew in September that the charges were bogus, which is why they were dropped.

[glinda]

7. Blatantly appears he was framed to get him into custody. He will receive NO fair trail here.

[Rozlee]

8. They're still talking "he said--she(s) said.

I don't know how Swedish laws work. Here in the U.S., I don't remember what case it was, but a guy was accused of sticking pins in his condom packet after finding out his girlfriend was unfaithful to see if she'd get pregnant by him. She did, but the guy was acquitted because they said people took "acceptable risks" when they had sex. I don't know how that went for the guy that got convicted for having sex with several people when he had AIDS. I just hope that the Swedes don't paint all their sex laws with too broad a brush. But, it doesn't look too good for Mr. Assange. He took on the VERY rich and the VERY powerful. They've got to make an example of him. But, the gauntlet has been thrown down. WikiLeaks is a name brand. Other generic sites with the same function are going to be springing up to take it's place and they know it. Either way, if he's freed or imprisoned, the leaks will go on. The torch will be passed on to new defiant groups of leakers even if WikiLeaks is shut down. Especially if WikiLeaks is shut down.

[Matilda]

10. Swedish sexual assault laws seem to be the most peculiar in the world,

outside of Muslim countries.

As an example, a woman can change her mind part way through the act, and it becomes rape, which seems a tad unfair on the bloke.

From what I've read of the saga, things seemed to go pear-shaped for Assange when the women discovered that he'd had sex with both of them. It may have begun as a simple case of "Hell hath no fury ..." Both women seemed to have been completely at ease with him until then. But there's a nasty feeling that other forces have now come into play, and it's out of their hands.

[TorchTheWitch]

17. are you fucking serious?

You think it's UNFAIR that a woman can change her mind part way into the act? You think that by consenting to sex with conditions that those conditions can be ignored part way through the act or that the woman has to suffer ANY act even if it's painful or degrading or just not something she wants to do? Even when she tells her partner to stop???

You think that's UNFAIR to the man???

That's SICK.

[Rozlee]

19. Actually, I think she's saying that by the woman changing her mind in

the middle of the act, it turns the whole act from the beginning when she consented into rape, even if the man stops when she tells him to. That does seem to be unfair to the man. Any woman can change her mind in the middle of the sex act and it is rape if the man doesn't comply with her wishes. But, if he does comply and it's still considered rape because she became unwilling later during the act, it is unfair to her partner. He stopped when she told him to; he shouldn't be accused of a crime just because she became an unwilling partner at a certain point in intercourse.

Oh, and BTW, OpenLeaks.org will be open for business on Monday.

[Ruperto31]

20. My GF is an anti-date rape advocate.

She goes around to the public schools with a slide show she created to warn young women and girls about the dangers of date rape.

She thought the charges against Assange were hilarious. Honest to God, I am not kidding.

[northzax]

133. then she's not much of an advocate

if a girl can't say no once sex starts, is she?

so what you should do, is next time you are getting into the mood, start fooling around, and get to whatever you believe the point of no return is. the point where you can't say no anymore. and then pull a Cleveland Steamer. or a Bismarck. or a Donkey Punch. and see what she thinks then. good luck.

[Matilda]

23. Yes, I do.

I think it's stupid and ridiculous. The time to decide whether she wants to or not is BEFORE she lets it get
that far.

I think it's unfair that a woman who has given her consent can then go into a court and charge a man with rape.
There is such a thing as "aiding and abetting", and it fits this kind of case.

You say yes or you say no. To demand to have it both ways is unfair, and totally stupid.

[Rozlee]

28. Maybe I've misunderstood your comments.

But, as per my previous post, I thought you were saying that a woman could change her mind in the middle of a sex act irregardless of whether her partner complied or didn't and the act was considered a case of rape. I believe that when a woman says "No" she means no even if earlier she said "yes." What if she starts experiencing pain and wants the man to stop? Or the act takes too long? Yes, I was once with a gentleman who had an erection that lasted over three hours long before Viagra came around due to psych meds he was on. I said "No" from sheer exhaustion. Or any number of reasons? "No" should always mean "no." Sure, it's unfair to the guy. But, he's got free will. He can jack off or take a cold shower. But, if a man stopped having sex with me in the middle of it all before I got my rocks off, I'd fume and think he was a real you-know-what tease. But, even if I could, I wouldn't tie him to my bedpost and make him deliver. No woman should expect a man to keep going at her either when she's said no to him. Unfortunately, in this unequal world, men are usually larger and stronger than women. It's usually up to them to stop when women tell them to. Women usually can't hold down and pound themselves into a guy that's lost his erection so, yeah, sex isn't a very great equalizer.

[harmonicon]

30. I stopped reading at "irregardless" n/t

[psychopomp]

81. It may be unfair, but so did I, actually

Sometimes errors like that just take away all my interest in reading more.

[No Elephants]

100. You feel compelled to post that, even if it humiliates a fellow DUer who wasn't being mean to you?

If your sensibilities are that easily offended, you couldn't have simply stopped reading? You just had to make the effort to take a gratuitous swipe to belittle a fellow poster for no good reason whatever.

The only kind of post you or harmonicon, bothered to make on this thread, too.

[No Elephants]

101. Please see Reply 100.

[Jazzgirl]

103. Oh my...I stopped reading at "irregardless" too, LOL.

n/t

[Rozlee]

120. I have a teabagger sister and her teabonics are getting to me. n/t

[Matilda]

38. I agree, there can be many reasons why a woman might change her mind.

And it's something the pair would have to work out, obviously. But to change your mind, and then say "I'm calling
the police to have your charged" is a bit rich. But in Sweden, you can do that, even though no coercion of any
kind was involved when you began.

[JDPriestly]

111. The woman who says no under the circumstances you describe

may have been raped or may not have been raped. The question is how will she prove she has been raped in a court of law? She may be able to prove it by convincing the jury that she is telling the truth. But she has a tougher time doing it than she might have under some other circumstances.

[Hello_Kitty]

57. Giving consent doesn't mean you consent to whatever the other person wants wants to do.

What if it starts as PIV and then he decides he wants oral or anal and she doesn't want to but he forces her?

[Matilda]

77. Under Swedish law, it's not necessary for anything else to happen

except for the woman to change her mind. In this case, it appears both women "changed their minds" after the act, in fact, the next day.

It's decidedly odd that such a case could stand up in court; only in Sweden, it would appear.

[Hello_Kitty]

78. I'm not talking about Swedish law. I'm talking about what you said. eom

[No Elephants]

93. Link re: specific Swedish statute, please?

[No Elephants]

99. You're wrong.

[JDPriestly]

110. I think that whether sex was rape might depend on what happened

after the sex. Did she write him e-mails or text him? Did she go out with him after the time she claimed she was raped?

I don't think an adult woman can claim to have been raped if she makes efforts to continue or develop her relationship with her alleged rapist after the alleged rape.

Whether there has been a rape has to be determined by the circumstances before, after and during the sexual contact, it would seem to me.

Rape is a crime. It has to be proved. I think it might be a bit difficult to prove that a condom broke. That would be his word against hers. And people tend to remember things differently.

Think of something that happened a few months ago. Ask someone who was present what they remember about it. You might be surprised to find out that each of you remembers different details. And sometimes you will disagree about what happened. That's why we have juries -- to decide which version of the facts will be accepted as true.

[Rozlee]

123. The Swedish laws on rape sound as confusing as American ones decades

ago when courts were trying to decide on whether to define rape according to biblical or medical definitions. As in: if the hymen remains intact, is it still rape? Fundamentalists naturally believed that every woman that was raped deserved it because she was probably of low moral character. Phyllis Schlafly famously said, "Good girls don't get raped" and that was in the 80s. Swedes seem like they have to really evolve some of their laws to be clearer in their definitions if some of the posts I'm reading are correct, but "no" should always mean "no" in every culture. And you're right. It's still going to be a question of "he said, she said."

[northzax]

132. really? you've never had sex go wrong?

never been in the middle and realized the other person was abusive, or an asshole, or whatever, and you just wanted it over with? never tried a new position, didn't like it, found it painful or whatever, and asked to stop? never? you need to have more sex.

[Matilda]

135. But - wouldn't charge the man with rape.

If I got myself into it, I have to get myself out of it.

[northzax]

136. so you say 'no' and 'stop'

and he keeps going. isn't that the definition of rape?

[Matilda]

143. I consider that consent given makes the woman at least partly culpable.

You have to take responsibility for your own actions; it's too easy just to blame someone else.

Which all ignores the fact that there is at this stage no evidence that this is what happened in the Assange case; he hasn't even been formally charged. This is the case under discussion, not you or I or somebody else with a story to tell.

Neither woman made any complaint at the time, and the second woman made him breakfast in the morning. How many women make breakfast for their rapist?

It may be that the whole thing was a "honey trap" - wouldn't be the first. The women may be genuinely worried about STDs, and they may be simply out for revenge on the guy who fucked them both. In the absence of specific charges, we can only guess.

[DesertDiamond]

47. +1,000,000

[WildEyedLiberal]

66. Agreed.

This whole "debate" reveals what a sham progressive attitudes about rape are. All I'm getting is that rape is bad when people we think are icky are accused, but if they are progressive heroes (Assange) or Great Artistes (Polanski), well, then, it's just hunky dory - or, at least, not that big a deal. :eyes:

Sick indeed.

[DWilliamsamh]

74. There is a pretty big difference between Assange and Polanski

Polanski is a convicted rapist - under US law. And he is a fugitive from justice, i.e., his sentence. He should be in jail. He's a scum bag who drugged and stuck his dick into every orifice of a thirteen year old girl.

Assange hasn't been convicted of anything. He has been charged with a crime that carries a maximum 4 year sentence: NOT RAPE. OF COURSE IF he flipped over his willing partner and tried to force anal over her protests, he should be charged with rape. And if it is proved that he DID that, he should spend time (whatever the max is in SE) in jail. But he hasn't even been CHARGED with anything close to that kind of scenario. He isn't being charged with rape, more like the equivalent of sexual misconduct.

For you to equate the two at this point is hyperbolic and manipulative in the extreme.

To pretend that there is no "grey" area, no situation in which a man might just be unfairly accused of rape, is just as silly as the idea that "she dressed slutty so she deserved it" is a valid defense for a rapist.

[WildEyedLiberal]

124. You sure put a lot of words into my mouth

Speaking of hyperbolic and manipulative, as I defy you to find ONE thing I said that implies that there is "no situation in which a man might unjustly be accused of rape." Really. Please do quote exactly where I said that.

I never said Assange was certainly guilty, but a whole lot of people on this site are sure that he is certainly innocent, and have wasted no timing in shaming and berating those nasty sluts who've accused him. You really think that's a-okay? Do you? You just admitted that we don't really know what happened, and yet, you are scornful of people who consider that he might be guilty and who are fed up with DU's piling on of his accusers. Interesting.

If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I didn't say that Assange and Polanski's ACTS were similar. Rather, DU's ATTITUDE toward them is similar, because in both cases, the majority of DU doesn't want to admit that someone they admire could be a sexual predator. In Assange's case, there is loud, full-throated denial that he did anything wrong; in Polanski's case, it was loud, full-throated insistence that raping a 13 year old in 1977 is "water under the bridge" and that we should all just collectively "get over it." If you don't see the similarity of the dismissiveness, then I think you're selectively choosing to ignore a rather ugly part of this community's character, a part that turns a blind eye to issues of alleged rape or sexual assault if committed by one of "our heroes."

[DWilliamsamh]

137. I don't think you can search my past posts for teh Polanski issue but -

If you could you would see that I was one of those berating people here for even daring to defend Polanski after the despicable acts he was not only convicted of - but plead guilty to. So we agree on Polanski.

As far as Assange - we agree on one thing: he hasn't been convicted of anything. Having said that: with the facts we have now (knowing new facts will come out as a result of the investigation and possible trial) I only speak for myself when I say: it doesn't look like either incident meets the definition of sexual assault, battery or most seriously rape. I have a visceral objection to the word rape being tossed around when the facts as we know them - and again we don't know all the facts - do not in any way meet the definition of rape even if they are 100% true. That is my only problem with your post.

And yes - it seems to me when you throw Polanski and Assange into the same argument you are equating them. As you are making a distinction between comparing the two men, vs comparing the reaction here on DU as being similar - I agree with you there as well. And I apologize for my misreading of your post. All that being said - the defense of Assange - at this point - seems entirely justified. Further facts could change the situation.

I generally don't suffer hypocrisy on "my side" any better than I do from the "other side."

[WildEyedLiberal]

142. Fair enough, it seems like we are more or less on the same page

I have never made a claim on DU as to whether Assange is or isn't guilty. And if he in fact isn't guilty, then yes, he should be exonerated and the women who accused him should be liable for their false claims. I think it's more the kneejerk insistence by some - and this happened as soon as the rape charges hit the internet, way before any facts of the case had dribbled out - that he ABSOLUTELY MUST BE INNOCENT and that this absolutely must be a setup to frame him because he's public enemy number one. All of these pronouncements were made on this website before anyone had any access to any facts. And that's what chaps my ass - the idea that because DU likes Assange, he can't possibly be guilty of rape. And from that assumption has sprung a number of very disturbing posts about sexual assault from supposed "progressives" that set my teeth on edge (for example, there are a number of posts mocking the notion that a woman can revoke consent after the sex act has begun, or mocking the notion that one could be raped while asleep, both of which are incredibly insulting to rape survivors).

If one wants to defend Assange strictly on the facts as they are now, or at least say that it seems likely that he isn't guilty, then that's one thing, but there has been a lot more than that going on. I think we essentially agree, though, and I apologize for being harsh in my reply.

[DWilliamsamh]

144. I do think we mostly agree on a theoretical level

COULD Assange be a rapist? Of course he could. Just like anyone else could. COULD a woman make false rape (or just false charges in general) against a man? Of course she could. It is my feeling given what I know of the real world that neither of those two things is probable.

But at the risk of repeating myself, I just think given what we know, and the fact that he isn't being charged with rape, talking about Assange and rape in the same sentence at this point is accomplishing exactly what the conspiracy theorists are talking about: the false smearing of his reputation because he is, in many ways and international enemy #1 to the most powerful people and governments in the world.

[Tunkamerica]

67. Wow, you just jumped to a conclusion I don't think the poster was

talking about. Deciding at some point that the consensual sex was a bad idea does not make the act rape.

[No Elephants]

87. Some point? Like a week later? If so, you're right. Otherwise, "stop" means stop.

Whatever was done before consent ended is legal. Whatever was done after is rape or assault. depending on what was done.

[Tunkamerica]

88. I don't think that was the poster's point. If you do then, agree to disagree.

Obviously, the scenario offered up by the respondent would be grounds for rape. I don't believe this is the scenario that is presented in the (as yet unmade) case against Assange. But, feel free to rush to judgement. It is the division of the left that all many posters have pointed to.

[No Elephants]

92. Speaking of rushing to judgment,....my post said nothing about what the other poster meant or about

the case against Assange. It simply states a fact.

[Tunkamerica]

94. But you're replying to that post.

If you'd written it on Yahoo answers I wouldn't have rushed to judgement. But to reply to a post with a reply that implies a certain stance is no rush to judgement. Am I wrong?

[No Elephants]

96. Sorry, I an not following the phrasing in your post just before "Am I wrong?"

However, I replied to this part of your Reply 67:

"Deciding at some point that the consensual sex was a bad idea does not make the act rape."

My reply was:

"Some point? Like a week later? If so, you're right. Otherwise, "stop" means stop.


Whatever was done before consent ended is legal. Whatever was done after is rape or assault. depending on what was done."


Just a simple statement of fact.


As far as Assange: I don't know what the case against him will claim. I also don't know if he's guilty or not. None of us do. My gut says "Gee, what a convenient 'coincidence!'" But, I try to remain very aware of the difference between my gut and external reality. And, I don't want to assume the women are lying.

As far as what the other poster meant, I don't know. The post seems ambiguous. However, if he or she means, under Swedish law, a person can consent all night and legally cry "rape" the next day, I doubt the poster has a correct and complete understanding of Swedish law.

I've requested a link. We'll see.

[Le Taz Hot]

82. It's rape if she says "stop" and he doesn't.

Perhaps that's not what you're understanding. However, if she decides to change her mind in the middle of the act, the gentleman DOES stop and he is STILL subjected to rape charges, then that's just bullshit.

[Hello_Kitty]

56. You can't withdraw consent no matter what happens?

What if I'm with a guy and I decide to ram a dildo up his ass midway through the act? Must he tolerate it because, after all, we've begun having sex and I haven't gotten my rocks off yet?

[Tunkamerica]

90. Please read some of the other responses.

And, as a male, I believe it would be difficult to win that case.


edited: 'bring' that case to 'win' that case

[No Elephants]

85. Men "scorned" never do anything to anyone. So, using a sexist saying works well.

[Tunkamerica]

91. Using quotes around "familiar phrasing" makes "points"

despite deliberately missing the original point of the post.

[No Elephants]

97. Ah, yes, using quotation marks around a very familiar quotation is very meaningful.

I believe it's called, "proper punctuation." Speaks volumes.

Sorry, using a sexist quote to try to make your point is using a sexist quote, even if you skywrite it in neon quotation marks.

[Rage for Order]

9. Well then, why not publish those "secret police documents" on Wikileaks???

Wikileaks isn't known for being selective in the secret documents they post to the internet.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

13. What makes you think that?

Oh, let me guess. The American media.

[Rage for Order]

14. You're probably right

I'm sure Mr. Assange carefully screened the 200,000+ documents he posted to the internet a couple of weeks ago, holding back those that were deemed "secret" or "classified".

[EFerrari]

15. You might want to go read up.

Less than 1% of those docs have been processed yet let alone published.

Here's Greenwald.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/10/wikileaks_media/index.html

And LOL at the idea that a government designation of "secret" or "classified" should be off limits to any journalist worth his salt.

[Rage for Order]

16. I didn't say the documents should be off limits

I was simply making the point that, given Wikileaks' track record of publishing documents, Wikileaks would publish these "secret police documents" that their defense attorney has seen, especially if they helped Wikileaks' defense.

[boppers]

18. It would be inappropriate, and detrimental to his case.

Also, Assange is not a government, bank, or other non-private entity.

[forty6]

41. Exculpatory evidence for Mr. Assange would be "inappropriate"?

We should all just wait and let him go to trial before such exculpatory evidence surfaces because he's not a bank or a government?

Make little sense to me!

If he's innocent, and there's evidence to prove it, put it out there!

[boppers]

71. People have a right to privacy.

Governments, banks, businesses, do not.

...and if you *really* want to find the information, it's already out there...

[tblue37]

21. They did screen them--and redacted info that could get people hurt. nt

[Teaser]

22. boring posts

yawn.

[fascisthunter]

34. This Really Pisses you Off

I look forward to seeing more leaked.

[Alcibiades]

58. Probably because they are material to his defense

To do so would be legal malpractice on his part. Save the actual documents for the trial, if any: this is for public consumption.

If you trust that this case has merit, I've got some WMDs in Iraq to sell you.

[iandhr]

11. "But Mr Hurtig remains confident that Mr Assange will get a fair hearing in Sweden ..."

Read that quote from the article. His lawyer says that he can getting a fair hearing.


Instead of getting all hopped up about this I will take Mr. Hurtig at is word when he says that Assange can get a fair trial when it comes to these charges. I take it that he knows more about the legal system in his country then we do.

[ProudDad]

37. He will never get to trial in Sweden...

The plan is to get him from Britain into Sweden...

Then the USAmericans will file for extradition from Sweden...

Sweden will immediately drop the charges and render him unto the USAmericans...

Who will declare him an "enemy combatant" and spirit him off to Gitmo or somewhere worse...

Then trump up some charge to put him away for 30 years to life...

That's the way the fucked up Empire works...

[iandhr]

40. Sweden

does not extradite for political offenses according to the US-Sweeden extradition treaty he can file against extradition to the United States if the Swedes do this. He had first remedies is the Swedish court system then he can go the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France if he exhausts his Swedish remedies

But i think the Swedes do intend to try him. Thats why he has a Swedish lawyer talking about the nations rape laws and how his client can get a fair hearing

[EFerrari]

49. The case looks too weak to go to trial.

I think the Americans pressured Sweden to re-open the case with the idea that they'd find a way to bag him before the thing goes to trial.

But I don't see how they're going to get either Britain or Sweden to extradite him. It would be illegal to send him to a country that has the death penalty, for example, as we do. There are other similar considerations.

[Pavulon]

52. not at all, it is legal if the death penalty is not on the table

but 25 years for conspiracy served in florence co is not the death penalty.

[Vattel]

53. I wouldn't be surprised if Sweden doesn't prosecute Assange

Right now he is wanted for questioning. If he is prosecuted, it is possible that he will be convicted and not extradited. But I read (I don't know if it is true) that a mere 10% of rape prosecutions result in convictions in Sweden.

[TexasObserver]

89. This.

The framing in Sweden is a ruse to get him in custody, so grabbing him by the US will appear to happen through channels, instead of them simply kidnapping him.

[dipsydoodle]

12. It smacked of a stitch up from the outset

.

[SoapBox]

72. Ditto.

[newtothegame]

24. Sure Mr. Hurtig. You're right. All rape victims are liars. nt

[LadyHawkAZ]

26. Where did THAT come from???

I didn't get that at all. I DID get him saying that these two specific "rape" victims were lying, which is something I and a lot of other ACTUAL rape victims have been saying was probably the case from the outset. Calling two women liars does not equate to calling all victims liars.

[newtothegame]

29. I find the selective vetting of rape victims interesting, thats all. nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

32. Did you even read the article? Do you know what the accusation really is?

They wanted to have sex with him.

The charges disappeared then reappeared on same day.

Excerpt from the article:

One of the women, a political activist in her 30s described as Miss A, claims she was unlawfully coerced and subjected to sexual molestation and deliberate molestation. The other woman, Miss B, who is in her 20s, has alleged he had sex with her without a condom while she was sleeping.
Mr Assange told Mr Hurtig he had a brief affair with Miss A – who had organised a seminar for the Centre-Left group Brotherhood Movement – while staying in her flat.

Miss B admitted in her police statement that she sought out Mr Assange after seeing him on TV and, clearly infatuated, attended the seminar he was giving. They had a ‘sexual encounter’ in a cinema on their first meeting and two days later had protected sex at her flat, 40 miles from Stockholm. But the woman told police that she woke up next morning to find him having sex with her without a condom.
‘This is what they are saying is rape,’ said Mr Hurtig. He said Mr Assange and Miss B parted on good terms, with Miss B buying his train ticket back to Stockholm. But Mr Hurtig said that after Mr Assange reneged on his promise to call her and failed to return her phone calls over the next few days, the drama took a ‘bizarre’ turn.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337862/WikiLeaks-rape-victims-hidden-agendas---Ive-seen-proof-says-Assange-lawyer.html

[No Elephants]

98. Not sure what your point is. What you quoted, IF TRUE, describes two rapes.

Saying they're lying is one thing. Implying the language you quoted, if true, does not equal rape is horrifying.

[Odin2005]

33. There are NO rape accusations, that is a creation of the MSM.

[LadyHawkAZ]

54. They aren't rape victims.

They themselves said there was no violence, threat or lack of consent. Ergo no rape.

They did not approach the authorities seeking to file rape charges. From what's been published, I think the intent might have been a dose of public humiliation, but that's JMO.

The police and prosecutor were the ones who decided there had been a rape. Or two, or whatever. Think about it: you're a public prosecutor, on the night and weekend shift, in a metropolitan area of a country taking heavy fire both internally and internationally for its horrific rape statistics and lousy conviction rate. And then this drops into your lap, with an internationally famous name attached. Now you have a shot at 1) making a nice loud statement on How Seriously Sweden Takes Its Swelling Rape Statistics that will be heard 'round the world and 2) making a name for yourself and/or getting the hell off the night and weekend shift. What would *you* do? I remember some of the initial stories reporting that they issued the warrant before they'd even taken official statements.

And I'm sorry. Rape victims don't cook their rapist breakfast, pay for their train ticket and ask them to call later. Rape victims do not brag online about how great their rapist is, go out partying with them and then go back for seconds. For that, if nothing else, I call bullshit.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WolverineDG]

27. What a shocker! Someone's attorney says the other side is lying

what did you expect his lawyer to say? that he's guilty as sin?

:eyes:

dg

[msanthrope]

35. And that's he's got 'secret evidence' to prove it!!! Quelle Suprise!!

[forty6]

42. I thought Wikileaks was all about making "secret evidence" not so secret!...

silly me!

[WolverineDG]

46. Assange is exempt from the transparency he demands from everyone else

Another surprise!

dg

[defendandprotect]

64. No ... Assange's lawyer is working for transparency ....read the article...

[LanternWaste]

126. He hasn't demanded transparency from me...?

He hasn't demanded transparency from me...? :shrug:

When did you get your notice?

[EFerrari]

50. Did you read the article? He could be disbarred for releasing

the information.

[Alcibiades]

60. +1

I do wonder why so many DUers are suddenly so anxious to trust the folks going after Aussange.

[EFerrari]

65. If Assange were abusive with women and 39 and active

shouldn't there be a chorus line or at least one woman that has nothing to do with Sweden chiming in by now? Maybe there will be or is but I haven't heard a peep in that direction. It's not very usual for someone to wake up 39 and begin to be abusive.

[Alcibiades]

108. And it came at a very convenient time

One of the accusers was described as a "stalker," after all. Quite possible that the CIA found that Aussange was a man who has a proclivity for women, and found a way to get these two to go after him.

I live in Durham. Does anyone remember the Duke Lacrosse case? The accuser in that case was motivated by the humiliation she suffered at the hands of the partygoers: the prosecutor was motivated by politics and careerism. Folks who cannot imagine that anyone would accuse someone wrongly ought to remember that case: I, for one, was taken in by that narrative.

[EFerrari]

117. The first woman, Ardin, seems to have a lot of turmoil in her life

She is very energetic about being known as a feminist and yet she posted a blog entry about revenging herself on former lovers by dragging them through the legal system falsely -- the very lowest, most anti-feminist response to a jilting possible.

[defendandprotect]

63. It is...that's why his lawyer wants to release it ...but would be disbarred for doing so....

he needs permission to do so from the courts --

Yes -- "silly" you -- !!

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

62. Nonsense.... Assange's lawyer is trying to get permission to relate the evidence...

to British officials -- did you even read the article?

Quelle Surprise!!

[laughingliberal]

31. K & R nt

[ProudDad]

39. They're not the only ones. Many here on DU appear to have agendas of their own...

The knee-jerk Assange haters seem to come out of the woodwork in these Wikileak threads...

I wonder why they hate the world so much that they'd be so eager to support the Empire?

[forty6]

43. My only agenda is to get as close to the truth as possible, be it about ..

the U.S. government, other governments, banks, corporations, etc or about Mr Assange and his credibility...

Give me as much facts as possible, don't have lawyers holding them back, or politicians and bankers and other unethical corporatists holding them back.

If that's a problem for you or others at DU, well.... too bad.

I'm a liberal because the facts so often have a liberal bias.

[MrMickeysMom]

55. I've been trying to figure that one out, too

Some are low post counts, not all.

One thing in common, to confuse the issue. Meanwhile, we're being beat down like rented mules at lightening speed.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

70. Many of them were pro TSA porn scanners

and groping. They just want to 'feel' safe and trust people in 'authority'. I'm just the opposite.

[azureblue]

44. The "charges" are based on the complaints

of two groupies. Even before the charges were made, they communicated and compared notes. All hunky dory, and hee hee. THEN they SOMEHOW got all PO'd, hired the same lawyer, and files charges. And wiped their twitter correspondence (which is still available). The charges were dropped, for lack of evidence, then revived, with no reason at all for the reinstatement, and not at their behest. Then one of the them, Ms. Ardin turns up with a history of working with the CIA as an agent / activist. Then Ms. Ardin realized the mess she made, and high tails it to the mid east, out of range. So the charges against Assange are now based on the complaint of one 20 something year old groupie, who, as far as we know, was not the one who complained about the condom issue in the first place.

But yet, this is an Interpol, extraditable offense? Over the use or not, of a condom? Get real. This smells fishier than a boat load of herring. The Swedes now have a very flimsy case against Assange, one that certainly is not strong enough to merit holding him in solitary, and now they are caught with-holding evidence from his lawyer.

And the US has no grounds to bring charges against him, at all. None. And if they do come up with something, they will be forced to charge the NYT as well, because they were the ones that published the wikileaks in the US.

[Vattel]

48. Ardin was "working with the CIA as an agent/activist"? Sure she was

[EFerrari]

51. She was deported from Cuba for associating with a State Department front group.

Yes, she was.

[Shining Jack]

79. +1 She sure did. n/t

[Vattel]

113. lol, sounds less sinister now

Is Ardin a CIA agent or not?

[EFerrari]

115. She's probably not, she doesn't seem smart enough.

But she could very easily be a plant or an informer or a runner. Her background is in PR.

[defendandprotect]

61. Encouraging ... but I'd really like to know how many cases like this have actually

gone to trial or prisons sentences -- or having Interpol chase down the

accused?

[EFerrari]

73. Accused but not even charged at the time the red notice went out.

I'm sure it happens all the time. :eyes:

[HEyHEY]

75. How can you be raped by a website?

God I hate poor headlines.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

106. Rotten.com. I rest my case. -nt

[Shining Jack]

80. K&R n/t

[TexasObserver]

86. Not surprised at all. One appears to be an agent for intel.

[pleah]

104. K&R

[Love Bug]

112. I'd say both sides are highly motivated to discredit the other

Yeah, the timing of these charges against Assange are mighty suspicious but I'm not willing to jump on the "these women are liars" bandwagon. True or not, they are being used. How will anyone get justice in all this?

[katty]

118. charges to just get him in custody--no shit?!

[EFerrari]

119. I don't believe he's been charged yet.

The warrant seems to have been to detain him for questioning.

[24601]

141. So leak the documents already! Why the delay exposing the

corruption in the Swedish Justice system? Shining a strong light on the good, bad and ugly is the only way we can be sure nothing is being covered up.

(Edited primarily for spelling)