Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Silhouette]

The Ecuadorian government has told Swedish authorities they can interview WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at its embassy in London. The embassy does not intend to set a deadline for dealing with the case. I'm very curious to see whether Sweden will interview him at the the embassy or continue to deny they can do it legally.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/embassy-to-allow-assange-interview-20120727-22wfh.html

 

[BenBurch]

They do have a ruling that they cannot do it, or so I read. This is the same offer assange offered them when he was being extradited.

Plus, suppose they do interview him and decide that his answers are inconsistent or provable false, and it's time to charge him? Of course he flees jurisdiction or remains in that embassy until his dying day. No trial ever happens.

 

[Silhouette]

They do have a ruling that they cannot do it, or so I read. This is the same offer assange offered them when he was being extradited.

Plus, suppose they do interview him and decide that his answers are inconsistent or provable false, and it's time to charge him? Of course he flees jurisdiction or remains in that embassy until his dying day. No trial ever happens.

I guess that's a possibility. What's the longest anyone has lived in an embassy?

 

[bit_pattern]

I find the likelihood that he actually believes himself to be innocent as close to zero.

As someone whose opinions and general persona I respect immensely I do have to point out that I find this kind of visceral indictment of the personality of a man you've never met to be puzzling.

I would try to fight any kind of extradition attempts against me if I believed I was innocent AND was privy to the kind of information contained in the Stratfor emails detailing spectre secret grand juries being set up. Worrying about CIA plots isn't just delusional rantings if it has a firm foundation in reality.

Also, while not casting judgement of Assange's culpability, if I were being extradited for a crime unique to its jurisdiction that I personally didn't believe warranted being a crime (rape laws in Sweden can be considered extraordinary in the context of any other European legal jurisdiction) and which could result in a conviction under very flimsy standards of evidence (being charged with adultery, or homosexuality, in an Islamic state is one example that springs to mind) then I'd sure as **** fight it too.

 

[bit_pattern]

Assuming that asylum were granted, what are the legal protocols for getting him out of the country? Surely the police could arrest him on the way to the airport, no? Or is there some diplomatic protection for people in transit?

 

[BenBurch]

I guess that's a possibility. What's the longest anyone has lived in an embassy?

Cardinal József Mindszenty took refuge in the US embassy in Hungary from 1956 to 1971.

 

[BenBurch]

As someone whose opinions and general persona I respect immensely I do have to point out that I find this kind of visceral indictment of the personality of a man you've never met to be puzzling.

...

Oh, innocent people should fight extradition when they reasonably expect unfair treatment where they would go to be tried. Without a doubt.

But when I look at the history of this case (all from memory, so feel free to correct anything I don't have correct);

1. Went to Sweden hoping to use their internationally-famous legal system in his favor.
2. He used his celebrity to shag two women he then treated horribly. Whether you think the evidence supports rape or not it is unquestioned that both felt amazingly ill-used.
3. They met, compared stories, and on that basis asked him to take an STD test. He refused. A stunning thing to do under the circumstances.
4. At this point they went to the authorities only to try to force him to get an STD test.
5. The only way the police could force that was to arrest him, and since the circumstances were so horrible with respect to his treatment, they believed a rape case was possible.
6. They had a brief conversation with him in which he also refused an STD test and which left the police with the impression of guilt.
7. Formal interviews required before prosecution were scheduled, and he agreed to that schedule before fleeing jurisdiction.
8. He surfaced in London, and the Swedish government placed a request for his extradition with INTERPOL.
9. He staged a multi-million pound (other people's money) defense of the extradition, losing at every turn in spite of brilliant legal counsel.
10. Finally on track to be hauled back to Sweden for the interviews that would decide if prosecution has been indicated, he takes refuge in the embassy of one of the most repressive political leaders in the Americas, calculating that he could use the opportunity for that leader to give everybody else a black eye to manipulate safety from prosecution.
11. He still refuses an STD test.

That is all this is about.

All of the rest of this malarky is a *********** smoke screen.

He refuses an STD test.

That says guilt to me.

 

[BenBurch]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/assange-put-on-hold-for-games-20120728-232tg.html

ECUADOR'S Foreign Affairs Minister will meet the mother of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, who is holed up at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, Quito has announced.

Ricardo Patino is due to meet Christine Assange tomorrow to discuss her son's application for asylum in the Latin American nation, the Foreign Ministry said.

Ecuador will respond to Mr Assange's request on August 12, Mr Patino said, after the London Olympics.

''We will take decisions that do not affect our relations with Britain,'' he said, explaining that Quito would be careful not to disrupt the Olympic Games.

<SNIP>

If so, Assange is in for either a long stay or a cold shoulder.

 

[Childlike Empress]

But when I look at the history of this case (all from memory, so feel free to correct anything I don't have correct);

Here's a memory refresher (program can be watched online, see link in quote):

Australian TV program exposes Assange frame-up
By Mike Head, 28 July 2012

“Four Corners”, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation current affairs program, this week broadcast what amounted to an exposé of the frame-up of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange on allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Assange remains inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, seeking political asylum from the threat of being removed to Sweden, which would in turn facilitate extradition to the US.

The program provided a valuable service by simply piecing together what happened in the three crucial weeks after Assange arrived in Sweden in mid-August 2010. Assange was there to address a conference and investigate the possibility of hosting WikiLeaks’ operations in a secure computer facility.

By tracing the chronology, the program also clarified the connection between the Swedish witchhunt and the Grand Jury operation underway in the United States to charge Assange with espionage for WikiLeaks’ exposures of US war crimes (see: “Sex, Lies and Julian Assange”).

The program provided substantial evidence that the allegations against him were false and politically motivated. The unproven accusations were used to blacken his name in Sweden and around the world, and counter the widespread public support that he and WikiLeaks had won for courageously exposing the crimes and machinations of the US and other powers.

[detailed summary of program/chronology follows]

 

[tyr_13]

I'll probably come back and read more later but this stood out to me so far.

"That same night, a prosecutor issued a warrant for Assange’s arrest. The prosecutor’s office did not contact Assange. Instead, within hours, it leaked to the tabloid newspaper Expressen the statements made by the two women. The newspaper’s front page read: “Assange hunted for rape in Sweden.”

This was just the first evidence of high-level collusion, involving the police, the prosecutor’s office and the media, to destroy Assange’s reputation."

That's not evidence of high-level collusion. It might be consistent with it, but it's also consistent with a rape case involving a famous person, but it isn't evidence.

 

[BenBurch]

I'll probably come back and read more later but this stood out to me so far.

"That same night, a prosecutor issued a warrant for Assange’s arrest. The prosecutor’s office did not contact Assange. Instead, within hours, it leaked to the tabloid newspaper Expressen the statements made by the two women. The newspaper’s front page read: “Assange hunted for rape in Sweden.”

This was just the first evidence of high-level collusion, involving the police, the prosecutor’s office and the media, to destroy Assange’s reputation."

That's not evidence of high-level collusion. It might be consistent with it, but it's also consistent with a rape case involving a famous person, but it isn't evidence.

They couldn't contact Assange.

He had fled.

His lawyer claimed he didn't know how to contact him.

 

[BenBurch]

Here's a memory refresher (program can be watched online, see link in quote):

And since I cannot watch it, care to summarize how I have anything at all wrong in what I posted? Point-by-point?

 

[Childlike Empress]

And since I cannot watch it, care to summarize how I have anything at all wrong in what I posted? Point-by-point?

Not at all. There's a transcript below the video (click the button "show transcript") and a summary on WSWS.

 

[tyr_13]

I'll probably come back and read more later but this stood out to me so far.

I just finished reading it. It's all cherry picking and speculation, all of which has already been discussed in the thread. It doesn't gain any more credence just because that author is saying it. The people who found it lacking are given nothing new to go over and the people who found it convincing will just continue to do so.

Thanks for the link but it sadly doesn't add any information.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Oh, innocent people should fight extradition when they reasonably expect unfair treatment where they would go to be tried. Without a doubt.

But when I look at the history of this case (all from memory, so feel free to correct anything I don't have correct);

1. Went to Sweden hoping to use their internationally-famous legal system in his favor.
2. He used his celebrity to shag two women he then treated horribly. Whether you think the evidence supports rape or not it is unquestioned that both felt amazingly ill-used.
3. They met, compared stories, and on that basis asked him to take an STD test. He refused. A stunning thing to do under the circumstances.
4. At this point they went to the authorities only to try to force him to get an STD test.
5. The only way the police could force that was to arrest him, and since the circumstances were so horrible with respect to his treatment, they believed a rape case was possible.
6. They had a brief conversation with him in which he also refused an STD test and which left the police with the impression of guilt.
7. Formal interviews required before prosecution were scheduled, and he agreed to that schedule before fleeing jurisdiction.
8. He surfaced in London, and the Swedish government placed a request for his extradition with INTERPOL.
9. He staged a multi-million pound (other people's money) defense of the extradition, losing at every turn in spite of brilliant legal counsel.
10. Finally on track to be hauled back to Sweden for the interviews that would decide if prosecution has been indicated, he takes refuge in the embassy of one of the most repressive political leaders in the Americas, calculating that he could use the opportunity for that leader to give everybody else a black eye to manipulate safety from prosecution.
11. He still refuses an STD test.

That is all this is about.

All of the rest of this malarky is a *********** smoke screen.

He refuses an STD test.

That says guilt to me.

This is exactly it. And why I think he needs to go to Sweden and stop acting like a martyr. If anyone in the world had been accused of doing what he allegedly did, they'd have been dragged back to Sweden by the scruff of the neck.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Thanks for the link but it sadly doesn't add any information.

This thread is going round in circles for a long time. Skeptic Ginger has done several summaries. There is no need to add information to show how shaky the accusations and the behaviour of the accusers is. But the film has it nicely all in one place and some interviews with witnesses for A.'s stay with the women which were not mentioned afaik (given up following the "argument" here), in chronological order with the communication done by Ardin (meticulously ignored by the likes of Ben). If that doesn't help you come over your prejudices, "sadly" nothing will. Not that it matters.

 

[BenBurch]

Not at all. There's a transcript below the video (click the button "show transcript") and a summary on WSWS.

Does it say when he took an STD test?

If not, no reason to read it.

 

[tyr_13]

This thread is going round in circles for a long time. Skeptic Ginger has done several summaries. There is no need to add information to show how shaky the accusations and the behaviour of the accusers is. But the film has it nicely all in one place and some interviews with witnesses for A.'s stay with the women which were not mentioned afaik (given up following the "argument" here), in chronological order with the communication done by Ardin (meticulously ignored by the likes of Ben). If that doesn't help you come over your prejudices, "sadly" nothing will. Not that it matters.

Yes, yes, everyone who disagrees is prejudiced, my cherry picking is valid, rape victims should act this way and not that, etc, etc.

It's red herring because it doesn't actually address any argument, besides the 'they didn't act like rape victims' one. The chronology doesn't actually tell us anything. It's not evidence when it's consistent with several hypothesis.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Does it say when he took an STD test?

If not, no reason to read it.

I did not expect you to read it. And I don't buy that you can't watch it. You are far from credible on this issue, given your deep hatred of Assange, and your "memory" reflects that.

EOT

 

[BenBurch]

I did not expect you to read it. And I don't buy that you can't watch it. You are far from credible on this issue, given your deep hatred of Assange, and your "memory" reflects that.

EOT

You try making any video come though this firewall.