• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sure it has been mentioned in this thread, but why is it Assange should fear being extradited from Sweden to the US? Shouldn't he worry more about the UK? After all, the UK has much closer ties with the US than Sweden does.
 
uke2se said:
I'm sure it has been mentioned in this thread, but why is it Assange should fear being extradited from Sweden to the US? Shouldn't he worry more about the UK? After all, the UK has much closer ties with the US than Sweden does.
Click to expand...

He's also afoul the "Official Secrets Act" and the UK could simply try him for it.

As I understand it, being a citizen of a Commonwealth nation, it applies to him.
 
BenBurch said:
He's also afoul the "Official Secrets Act" and the UK could simply try him for it.

As I understand it, being a citizen of a Commonwealth nation, it applies to him.
Click to expand...

True. I would like to hear an answer from a member of Assange's cult of personality an Assange supporter.
 
uke2se said:
True. I would like to hear an answer from a member of Assange's cult of personality an Assange supporter.
Click to expand...

I'll take a wild guess - the UK has abolished capital punishment and the U.S. has not. If the U.S. could successfully convict him on espionage charges than he would be at risk of the death penalty. The pre-trial confinement of Bradley Manning was punitive and abusive. Julian Assange may be worried that he will also receive the same treatment or worse. It's not an unreasonable concern considering our country's treatment of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisoners. We certainly have set a precedent for human rights abuse.
 
Silhouette said:
I'll take a wild guess - the UK has abolished capital punishment and the U.S. has not. If the U.S. could successfully convict him on espionage charges than he would be at risk of the death penalty. The pre-trial confinement of Bradley Manning was punitive and abusive. Julian Assange may be worried that he will also receive the same treatment or worse. It's not an unreasonable concern considering our country's treatment of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisoners. We certainly have set a precedent for human rights abuse.
Click to expand...

But none of that answers why Assange should be worried about getting extradited from Sweden to the US, but not from the UK to the US. Sweden doesn't have capital punishment either.
 
uke2se said:
But none of that answers why Assange should be worried about getting extradited from Sweden to the US, but not from the UK to the US. Sweden doesn't have capital punishment either.
Click to expand...

And neither of them will extradite in a capital case without the destination agreeing to waive that.

He just doesn't want to take an STD test. I wonder why?
 
commandlinegamer said:
The UK may be planning to revoke the embassy status of the premises currently occupied for that purpose by Ecuador and Assange:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623

It's getting exciting now; I wonder if they'll send in the SAS.
Click to expand...

The Ecuadorian embassy has received a written threat of "use of force" in order to remove Assange, according to the foreign affairs minister. Would this be illegal under international law, given that an embassy is considered sovereign territory? Possibly an act of war? Here's the link in Spanish.

http://www.eluniverso.com/2012/08/15/1/1355/ecuador-denuncia-amenaza-londres.html
 
superfreddy said:
The Ecuadorian embassy has received a written threat of "use of force" in order to remove Assange, according to the foreign affairs minister. Would this be illegal under international law, given that an embassy is considered sovereign territory? Possibly an act of war? Here's the link in Spanish.

http://www.eluniverso.com/2012/08/15/1/1355/ecuador-denuncia-amenaza-londres.html
Click to expand...

Apparently it's quite legal, especially seeing how the embassy in question is harboring a fugitive from justice. I would be surprised if such a practice could not be countered.
 
Maybe this story evolved somewhat but the BBC story gives an account of the rape allegations which is very different from how they started out:

In 2010, two female ex-Wikileaks volunteers alleged that Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, had attacked them while he was in Stockholm to give a lecture.

Mr Assange claims the sex was consensual and the allegations are politically motivated.
Click to expand...

He "attacked" them? My understanding was that he had sex with them without a condom but they didn't know until after that he had taken off the condom. If this is correct then the definition of "attack" seems to have undergone some alterations since I last used it.
 
angrysoba said:
Maybe this story evolved somewhat but the BBC story gives an account of the rape allegations which is very different from how they started out:



He "attacked" them? My understanding was that he had sex with them without a condom but they didn't know until after that he had taken off the condom. If this is correct then the definition of "attack" seems to have undergone some alterations since I last used it.
Click to expand...

Kinda bad wording it would seem. What Assange is accused of counts as rape, and rape is a form of attack. I suppose this is how the reporter saw it, anyway.

This is quite an extraordinary turn of events, and threatening to revoke the embassy status might seem harsh when looking at what Assange is accused of. Then again, he is a fugitive in violation of British law, and wanted for questioning with regards to a Swedish case. Ecuador's actions amount to aiding in obstructing the justice system of two nations, basically as a PR stunt. I think that is an "unfriendly" act right there.
 
uke2se said:
Kinda bad wording it would seem. What Assange is accused of counts as rape, and rape is a form of attack. I suppose this is how the reporter saw it, anyway.
Click to expand...

I think it is terrible wording. I think that a lot of, maybe most, rapes are violent and can easily be considered attacks. But in this case we are talking about a particular definition of rape that is illegal in Sweden. I realize I am letting myself in for some faux-outrage hysteria but Assange's rape was not an attack except metaphorically ("He attacked my trust!" or something)

uke2se said:
This is quite an extraordinary turn of events, and threatening to revoke the embassy status might seem harsh when looking at what Assange is accused of. Then again, he is a fugitive in violation of British law, and wanted for questioning with regards to a Swedish case. Ecuador's actions amount to aiding in obstructing the justice system of two nations, basically as a PR stunt. I think that is an "unfriendly" act right there.
Click to expand...

It's true that Ecuador didn't have to take Assange in but we don't know it is a PR stunt. People seek asylum all the time in embassies of countries where X is not a crime; the human rights activist in China who went to the US embassy, for example, or North Korean defectors who head to the South Korean, Japanese or Thai embassies and consulates in China. Presumably these could be considered "unfriendly" acts as well.

On top of that, fugitives from justice in the UK have fled to countries where there are no extradition treaties such as Ronnie Biggs escape to Brazil after a train heist in which a railways employee was savagely beaten. I don't remember (I actually don't remember; I am not using the word rhetorically) if there were threats to revoke the Brazilian embassy's status.
 
angrysoba said:
I think it is terrible wording. I think that a lot of, maybe most, rapes are violent and can easily be considered attacks. But in this case we are talking about a particular definition of rape that is illegal in Sweden. I realize I am letting myself in for some faux-outrage hysteria but Assange's rape was not an attack except metaphorically ("He attacked my trust!" or something)
Click to expand...

I suppose violence isn't always physical. Or something.


angrysoba said:
It's true that Ecuador didn't have to take Assange in but we don't know it is a PR stunt. People seek asylum all the time in embassies of countries where X is not a crime; the human rights activist in China who went to the US embassy, for example, or North Korean defectors who head to the South Korean, Japanese or Thai embassies and consulates in China. Presumably these could be considered "unfriendly" acts as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to compare a person who's on the run from being extradited for questioning on sexual misconduct and rape accusations with someone on the run from a violent and oppressive regime where all he did was speak his mind.

angrysoba said:
On top of that, fugitives from justice in the UK have fled to countries where there are no extradition treaties such as Ronnie Biggs escape to Brazil after a train heist in which a railways employee was savagely beaten. I don't remember (I actually don't remember; I am not using the word rhetorically) if there were threats to revoke the Brazilian embassy's status.
Click to expand...

Did Ronnie Biggs hide in the Brazilian embassy?
 
uke2se said:
Kinda bad wording it would seem. What Assange is accused of counts as rape, and rape is a form of attack. I suppose this is how the reporter saw it, anyway.

This is quite an extraordinary turn of events, and threatening to revoke the embassy status might seem harsh when looking at what Assange is accused of. Then again, he is a fugitive in violation of British law, and wanted for questioning with regards to a Swedish case. Ecuador's actions amount to aiding in obstructing the justice system of two nations, basically as a PR stunt. I think that is an "unfriendly" act right there.
Click to expand...

Basically he is not even "accused" he is (was?) only wanted for questionning , I won't comment but even the crime is not that incredibly great that both of those fact warrant a diplomatic incident. It seems incredibly harsh and quite the precedent to make an eclat and threaten diplomatic immunity. Just saying.
 
Silhouette said:
It's not an unreasonable concern considering our country's treatment of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisoners. We certainly have set a precedent for human rights abuse.
Click to expand...
It is an unreasonable concern since Assange is not a member of any group the US has declared war on, and would not be subject to military custody and certainly not held indefinitely as a captured enemy combatant. In fact, that fear is not only unreasonable it's patently absurd.
 
WildCat said:
It is an unreasonable concern since Assange is not a member of any group the US has declared war on, and would not be subject to military custody and certainly not held indefinitely as a captured enemy combatant. In fact, that fear is not only unreasonable it's patently absurd.
Click to expand...

He was accused at a time to aiding and abbating spying against the US. Knowing that under some circumstance it can have pretty drastic penalty, and some of the docs on wikileaks were about military operations, it is not that unreasonable that the association could be made.

In fact it is patentely absurd to have "illegal combatant" and "indefinite detention" so I would not say the absurd would stops there.
 
angrysoba said:
Actually, this is not fun. I think these are extraordinary measures given the nature of the crime.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think extradition is more than warranted, but revoking embassy status and possible raid is over what is reasonable. Let him hide in there for years, his cries of 'the US wants me' becoming more and more ridiculous as people forget who the hell he is.
 
Aepervius said:
He was accused at a time to aiding and abbating spying against the US. Knowing that under some circumstance it can have pretty drastic penalty, and some of the docs on wikileaks were about military operations, it is not that unreasonable that the association could be made.
Click to expand...
It is unreasonable. He is not an enemy combatant, nor could he be by any stretch of the imagination. Worst case scenario is he's tried in federal court.

Aepervius said:
In fact it is patentely absurd to have "illegal combatant" and "indefinite detention" so I would not say the absurd would stops there.
Click to expand...
Name one single country that doesn't claim the right to hold captured enemies indefinitely during wartime. The only difference the label "illegal/unlawful combatant" makes is whether they get Article 4 POW status or Common Article 3 status. Either can be held for the duration of the war, and it is illegal to try them for simply being combatants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom