Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Cain]

Classic rape thread.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah, my bad. Sorry 'bout that.

lionking, Assange had an appointment with the police in one country, and instead of showing up for his appointment he showed up in a different country entirely.

Yes, Assange ran. He ran like a cheap stocking. If the stocking were also a douchebag. That runs.

I did mean to correct this a little last night, but I ended up heading to bed because it got late.

While Assange knew that the Sweedish Prosecutor's office was wanting to reinterview him, there was no appointment set that he missed, at least not quite.

A date had been set, which he knew about, but then one of the key personnel got sick and the interview was cancelled to be rescheduled at a later date once the person was better. Once this occured, the Prosecution got in touch with Assange's lawyer to determine a new date for the interview. Assange's lawyer claimed that he hadn't heard from Assange in a week, and then after another week of them trying to contact him and set up a new date for the interview, Assange surfaced in the UK.

So while, yes, he knew that the Sweedish authorities still wanted to talk to him, and yes he did run from that, there wasn't a specific date set for that second interview because they never managed to get hold of him so as to set one.

 

[PhantomWolf]

He's a wanted man on the run from rape charges. Nothing else.

Just to correct this bit. Under most Legal Systems it would be correct, as the Sweedish do believe there is enough to charge him, barring something amazing that he has to say in his own defence during the second interview, and that would be enough to secure an inditment or charge in most countries. However, in Sweeden, the person being charged must be present at the time. Since he is on the run, they haven't been able to do that part.

I have to admit that I do find it a little funny that certain people here seem to like to use the fact that all three legal systems have been, as of now, playing it strictly by the book, as evidence that they are planning to violate their own rules at a later date.

I'd probably word it as "He's a wanted man on the run to avoid getting a rape charge. Nothing else."

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I'd probably word it as "He's a wanted man on the run to avoid getting a rape charge. Nothing else."

This ^^^^

 

[bit_pattern]

So while people here might be convinced America isn't gunning for Assange, Australian diplomats feel differently:

US in pursuit of Assange, cables reveal

However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year".

The embassy noted media reports that a US federal grand jury had been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to pursue the WikiLeaks case and that US government officials "cannot lawfully confirm to us the existence of the grand jury".

Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.

Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.

 

[WildCat]

So while people here might be convinced America isn't gunning for Assange, Australian diplomats feel differently:

US in pursuit of Assange, cables reveal

And what does the Australian government base that belief on? Nothing in that story supports the headline.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And what does the Australian government base that belief on? Nothing in that story suppoorts the headline.

Indeed. And even if true, what does it mean?

 

[WildCat]

Indeed. And even if true, what does it mean?

Certainly Assange's relationship with Manning would be investigated as part of the Manning prosecution, but that doesn't mean that Assange is up for indictment.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That does not automatically follow.

If you buy one of the stories that the charges are politically motivated, you still have explain which one, and how they relate.

Some stories make the political motivation out to be some kind of radical feminist agenda, some stories claim a US connection to the people involved.

If we for example buy the story that the prosecutor, together with the lawyer for the women, and the courts that have been involved all are some kind of radical feminists, and therefor want to punish/make an example of JA, that does not automatically lead to that JA would be in for any further trouble one he is extradited to Sweden.

For that you also would need a second "story" of either Sweden, or a combination of Sweden and UK to break the law for JA to be sent on to the US.

All I can say is that you need to reread what I wrote, while being extra-alert for the presence and meaning of the word "might".

 

[PhantomWolf]

So while people here might be convinced America isn't gunning for Assange, Australian diplomats feel differently:

US in pursuit of Assange, cables reveal

And yet here we are another 6 months down the track and still..... nothing. No indictments made public, not requests from the US to the UK for extradition, nothing. If anything is clear from the article, it's that even if the US wants him badly, they too are playing it by the book. This is the crazy, despite all the evidence that all three countries are playing this exactly as their laws dictate, there is this insane belief that as soon as Sweden has him in custody, all of the law goes out the window, even when it would have been easier to have done it when the UK had him in custody.

The bizarre and fanciful scenario of the believer just doesn't work, there are so many easier ways to do it.

For instance, if the US could really manipulate the legal systems of the UK and Sweden as claimed, then why not let the UK courts toss the extradition to Sweden out, then have the US indict him, and extradite him from the UK which is by far easier given the extraction laws between the UK and the US versus those of the Sweden and the US? Quicker, easier, and more likely, less of a legal minefield. But no, according to the CT's on this one, the greatest legal minds of the world are all following the play book of the Illuminati, make things as complex and unbelievable as possible.

 

[bit_pattern]

And what does the Australian government base that belief on?

on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.

 

[bit_pattern]

And yet here we are another 6 months down the track and still..... nothing. No indictments made public, not requests from the US to the UK for extradition, nothing.

Frankly, I give more credence to the advice from Australian diplomats over the rationalisations of some guy on an internet forum

 

[PhantomWolf]

on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.

and yet six months later still no charges of espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information or computer fraud. I wouldn't want to be on that Grand Jury, I bet they aren't getting paid $25/hr.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And yet here we are another 6 months down the track and still..... nothing. No indictments made public, not requests from the US to the UK for extradition, nothing. If anything is clear from the article, it's that even if the US wants him badly, they too are playing it by the book. This is the crazy, despite all the evidence that all three countries are playing this exactly as their laws dictate, there is this insane belief that as soon as Sweden has him in custody, all of the law goes out the window, even when it would have been easier to have done it when the UK had him in custody.

The bizarre and fanciful scenario of the believer just doesn't work, there are so many easier ways to do it.

For instance, if the US could really manipulate the legal systems of the UK and Sweden as claimed, then why not let the UK courts toss the extradition to Sweden out, then have the US indict him, and extradite him from the UK which is by far easier given the extraction laws between the UK and the US versus those of the Sweden and the US? Quicker, easier, and more likely, less of a legal minefield. But no, according to the CT's on this one, the greatest legal minds of the world are all following the play book of the Illuminati, make things as complex and unbelievable as possible.

Firstly, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if someone (say the US government) is out to get you, and they seem very keen to get you into Sweden, then you don't want to go to Sweden. Maybe you're not sure why they want it, but if they want it, you don't.

Secondly, is it really beyond your imagination that someone in the US government thinks that it's more politically possible for the Swedish government to put Assange on a plane and then say "oops, sorry" than it is for the UK government to do so? I'm not positioning myself as any kind of expert on the relative political situations, but you're ruling this out by fiat without any evidence whatsoever.

Thirdly, is it really beyond your imagination that there might be less political fallout from rendering Assange to the USA after he's been convicted of something that can be described as "rape" than before?

It seems to me that you're making a lot of effort to bad-mouth Assange and his supporters without making a good faith effort to think through the issues to see whether or not they might have a point or two.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Frankly, I give more credence to the advice from Australian diplomats over the rationalisations of some guy on an internet forum

advice that is six months old. Do you really believe that the US have been conducting a grand jury for the last six months, likely more since the Feb report was about things that happened before Feb, and have still gotten nothing from it? I mean come on, if you can't convince a GJ to hand out an inditement in six months, you don't have a case.

 

[BenBurch]

...

I'd probably word it as "He's a wanted man on the run to avoid getting a rape charge. Nothing else."

Is the running itself a crime in Sweden?

In the USA, I believe most states have "flight to avoid prosecution" charges they can proffer in cases like these.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Firstly, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if someone (say the US government) is out to get you, and they seem very keen to get you into Sweden, then you don't want to go to Sweden. Maybe you're not sure why they want it, but if they want it, you don't.

Evidence that the US wants Assange in Sweden? Oh, right, you have none. The only evidence is that the Swedish authorities want Assange in Sweden, and we already know why, they want to prosecute him for rape.

Secondly, is it really beyond your imagination that someone in the US government thinks that it's more politically possible for the Swedish government to put Assange on a plane and then say "oops, sorry" than it is for the UK government to do so? I'm not positioning myself as any kind of expert on the relative political situations, but you're ruling this out by fiat without any evidence whatsoever.

So the Swedish Government is more corrupt and in the pockets of the US than the UK Government which is seen as pretty much the closest Ally the US has? Really? The Swedish Government, which is notoriously left wing, is more likely to break it's own laws than the UK one? Really? I'm not ruling it out without evidence to do so, I'm not ruling it in without any evidence to suggest I actually should. Strangely this is the way science works. I don't have any evidence to rule out the Twin Towers' destruction by malevolent Alien forces either, should that be considered a serious possibility?

Thirdly, is it really beyond your imagination that there might be less political fallout from rendering Assange to the USA after he's been convicted of something that can be described as "rape" than before?

If such rendering of Assange to the US is illegal, it wouldn't matter if he's a convicted rapist or not, it's still illegal and makes a mockery of the Justice systems of those involved. He could be a multiple mass murderer and it wouldn't change it a bit if the way such a transfer to the US was done was illegal and done with the full backing of the legal systems of the countries involved. This is the thing you seem to be completely missing. If they could legally extradite him to the US, it'd be easier to do it from the UK. If they were to illegally extradite him, it wouldn't matter where it was done or what his record is, it'd be a major blow to the legal system as it'd send the message that there is no justice system outside of the Government's wishes, and that's called a Tyranny.

It seems to me that you're making a lot of effort to bad-mouth Assange and his supporters without making a good faith effort to think through the issues to see whether or not they might have a point or two.

I have thought through the issues, apparently a heck of a lot more than most of his supporters. I look at the what the whole CT leads too, and realise that any Governments involved in that the CTs claim would have to be stake raving bonkers. The claims that are being made are right out of a Tom Clancy novel and read more like the tactics of the Putin Government than any western country. If you want to live in a world of paranoia where all governments are tyrannies that run roughshod over their justice systems pulling strings as shadow masters behind the scenes, then feel free too, but with zero evidence, don't expect me to accept your version of the world.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

So you think that it would be better to create a situation where two of the fundamenal principles of the western world are shattered to the point of the legal systems acting in an illegal manner due to blatent political interference in three countries, rather than having the situation where all three justice systems can claim clean hands as they did the right thing, and the US Govt copping some more flak for continuing to do the same things it has been doing for the last 10 years since 9/11 anyway?

Yes, are you joking? You really believe the United States federal government would order CIA SAD to expropriate a non-US citizen living outside the United States' jurisdiction, with the entire world watching? By your indirect admission, in the past, the United States government has illegally manipulated a vast number of situations it should not have been involved in anyway, so why would they care about the "fundamental principles" of another country's sovereignty or system of justice?

If Julian Assange went missing, would you seriously sit behind your computer screen and try to convince us the Department of Defense was merely twiddling its fingers at the time?

And don't attempt to turn my statements into, "Why would the DoD want him?" I'm merely criticizing your somewhat foolish assessment that the US government is as stupid as you think it is.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

So you think that it would be better to create a situation where two of the fundamenal principles of the western world are shattered to the point of the legal systems acting in an illegal manner due to blatent political interference in three countries, rather than having the situation where all three justice systems can claim clean hands as they did the right thing, and the US Govt copping some more flak for continuing to do the same things it has been doing for the last 10 years since 9/11 anyway?

I am certainly not advocating that the US kidnap Assange or manipulate the courts. Both of those outcomes would be despicable. I don't think either situation is desirable.

I am merely suggesting that kidnapping a high-profile foreign national, who has an Australian passport, on British soil, would also create an international **** storm. It would be complete violation of British sovereignty. Blatant kidnapping is as much a disaster as being rumbled manipulating a foreign court. You seem to think that Assange could be taken by some black-ops team and no-one would notice he had gone or put up much of a fuss. There would be severe ramifications for such behaviour. You say that there is precedent. Tell me what the precedent is for the US to kidnap a foreign national on British soil, a foreign national that is in the spotlight of the international media?

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

 

[bit_pattern]

advice that is six months old. Do you really believe that the US have been conducting a grand jury for the last six months, likely more since the Feb report was about things that happened before Feb, and have still gotten nothing from it? I mean come on, if you can't convince a GJ to hand out an inditement in six months, you don't have a case.

Is it not feasible that there could already be a sealed indictment sitting around somewhere? Certainly that's what the Stratfor emails allege.