Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Checkmite]

I don't get this; it's okay for Assange to evade justice for a rape charge because of something the pentagon "might do" but that there's no evidence the pentagon wants to do?

 

[rwguinn]

I don't get this; it's okay for Assange to evade justice for a rape charge because of something the pentagon "might do" but that there's no evidence the pentagon wants to do?

You keep forgetting the JREF Mantra: "USA E-vil"

 

[trustbutverify]

You keep forgetting the JREF Mantra: "USA E-vil"

Well, it does keep things simple. Some people require that.

 

[trustbutverify]

Forget the Swedish rape charges. Forget the threat of US extradition and prosecution. Forget the shadowy fiends of the NWO who relentlessly pursue secret agent Assange.

His real problem are all those teenage Asian girls stalking him!

 

[applecorped]

Forget the Swedish rape charges. Forget the threat of US extradition and prosecution. Forget the shadowy fiends of the NWO who relentlessly pursue secret agent Assange.

His real problem are all those teenage Asian girls stalking him!

New band name. I claim it!!!!!!!!

 

[Silhouette]

It's irrelevant what the two defendants want. What is relevant is the law.

I don't understand why the women's interests are irrelevant. They both stated that they never felt threatened by Assange, they didn't present any evidence that he threatened them in any way. If they didn't feel that they were raped by him, then why force them to press rape charges against him? If they had shown up with bruises and cuts then maybe I could see the logic, but in their case there was no physical evidence to justify the police forcing the issue.

I think that in the U.S. the police can not force a person to press charges against someone if they don't want to, I could be wrong.

 

[theprestige]

Evidence that this was his motivation?

Sweden starts investigating him for rape charges. He leaves the country.

"Running From Rape Investigation" Theory: 1
"Getting Smeared by the Pentagon" Theory: 0

Given the circumstances, as I've pointed out before, I can understand his reluctance to be taken in by the authorities. He might be trying to dodge rape charges, or he may be doing his best to err on the side of caution and seeking to evade extradition to the US.

The rape charges are a matter of fact. The US extradition is a matter of speculation.

"Running From Rape Investigation" Theory: 1
"Getting Smeared by the Pentagon" Theory: 0

Alleged actions are evidence?

Sweden thinks they're worth investigating. The UK thinks they're worth investigating.

"Running From Rape Investigation" Theory: 1
"Getting Smeared by the Pentagon" Theory: 0

Totals:
"Running From Rape Investigation" Theory: 3
"Getting Smeared by the Pentagon" Theory: 0

You can try to downplay these data points all you like, but the fact is, they're data points in favor of the interpretation that Assange is smearing himself, and there's not even a single comparable data point in favor of the interpretation that the Pentagon smearing him. QED.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

lol

so you've gone from claiming your speculation is 'evidence' to claiming it's 'data'

lol

good luck with that

 

[Here_to_learn]

I think that in the U.S. the police can not force a person to press charges against someone if they don't want to, I could be wrong.

The concept of "pressing charges" is not relevant in Sweden. it's not the two women that's charging him (or would be charging when/if it comes to that). This text from the Swedish Prosecution Authorities home page explains it:

Duty to prosecute

In the case of most crimes, the prosecutor has what is known as an absolute duty to prosecute. This means that the prosecutor is obliged to initiate a prosecution if he or she considers there to be sufficient evidence to prove that a crime has been committed and that a certain person has committed it.

This in turn means that not even the victim of the offence can decide what is to happen in connection with the investigations. In other words, there is nothing on the lines of “withdrawing the charges”. The prosecutor must make sure that the crime is investigated, irrespective of the feelings or wishes of those involved.

The reason for this is that society has an interest in ensuring that the perpetrators of the crime are also tried for it. Exceptions are made for certain offences where it may be felt that the interests of the general public in instigating legal proceedings are not strong enough. Examples of such offences are defamation, breach of domiciliary peace and crimes of unlawful appropriation, or stealing, within the family (i.e. theft etc.).

 

[tyr_13]

I don't understand why the women's interests are irrelevant. They both stated that they never felt threatened by Assange, they didn't present any evidence that he threatened them in any way. If they didn't feel that they were raped by him, then why force them to press rape charges against him? If they had shown up with bruises and cuts then maybe I could see the logic, but in their case there was no physical evidence to justify the police forcing the issue.

I think that in the U.S. the police can not force a person to press charges against someone if they don't want to, I could be wrong.

It's often not the person pressing charges, but the state pressing charges because of the harmful effects the illegal acts have on society and the potential harmful effects on others were the illegal acts to continue.

This is also why they still charging rape even if the victims didn't feel 'threatened'. The acts they described fit the crime of rape (yes even in the UK), so them not being 'threatened' by it is irrelevant. I might not feel 'threatened' by a pick pocket, but that doesn't make it not theft. Besides that, other victims might feel even worse repercussions from the rape than these victims did.

Also, your 'cuts and bruises' line of reasoning is dangerously close to the myth that 'real' rape is violent. It often isn't.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Also, your 'cuts and bruises' line of reasoning is dangerously close to the myth that 'real' rape is violent. It often isn't.

I remember a poster here (who has left since) describing her own rape, where a man staying with her entered her room and got into bed, then had sex with her before leaving. She noted that she was shocked and did nothing to stop it, just pretended to be asleep. It seems that many in this thread would not consider that action rape because she never said no, and in her case never even reported it to the police. The whole idea that rape has to be violent and that the women has to activity resist it is totally rediculous, and yet some still keep rolling it out. What baffles me even more is that a number of them are women.

 

[JihadJane]

You keep forgetting the JREF Mantra: "USA E-vil"

Or "How I learned to love torture".







@Here_to_learn: Here's an example of what I mentioned in my PM

 

[JihadJane]

I don't understand why the women's interests are irrelevant. They both stated that they never felt threatened by Assange, they didn't present any evidence that he threatened them in any way. If they didn't feel that they were raped by him, then why force them to press rape charges against him? If they had shown up with bruises and cuts then maybe I could see the logic, but in their case there was no physical evidence to justify the police forcing the issue.

I think that in the U.S. the police can not force a person to press charges against someone if they don't want to, I could be wrong.

IIRC, it is the Swedish State (advised by Karl Rove) that is pressing charges, not the two women.

 

[barium]

IIRC, it is the Swedish State (advised by Karl Rove) that is pressing charges, not the two women.

The prosecutor is pressing charges. As is the case in pretty much every western legal system.

Claes Borgström, the womens attorney, appealed the decision of the first prosecutor to drop parts of the investigation. Which leads me to believe that the women, indeed, wanted charges to be pressed.

Prosecutors are part of the judicial branch of government, and what Karl Rove (supposedly) adviced on was the re-election campaign of politicians. I don't see how that has anything to do with the case.

 

[trustbutverify]

First the two women were CIA "honeytrap" agents, now the're victims of a Swedish prosecuter forcing them against their will? Can't uncle Julian's drooling sycophants make up their minds?

 

[BenBurch]

So, this isn't "Legitimate Rape"?

 

[Stacko]

So, this isn't "Legitimate Rape"?

Apparently it’s just bad sexual etiquette.

 

[WildCat]

Amazing how Assange felt comforable in Sweden for months, even wanted to live there, and only decided they were going to hand him over to the US to be tortured when he was accused of rape. Purely coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[Silhouette]

The concept of "pressing charges" is not relevant in Sweden. it's not the two women that's charging him (or would be charging when/if it comes to that). This text from the Swedish Prosecution Authorities home page explains it:

Thank you for explaining that, it makes sense now.

 

[Silhouette]

It's often not the person pressing charges, but the state pressing charges because of the harmful effects the illegal acts have on society and the potential harmful effects on others were the illegal acts to continue.

This is also why they still charging rape even if the victims didn't feel 'threatened'. The acts they described fit the crime of rape (yes even in the UK), so them not being 'threatened' by it is irrelevant. I might not feel 'threatened' by a pick pocket, but that doesn't make it not theft. Besides that, other victims might feel even worse repercussions from the rape than these victims did.

Also, your 'cuts and bruises' line of reasoning is dangerously close to the myth that 'real' rape is violent. It often isn't.

I know that rape isn't always violent. A threat of violence that coerces a person to have sex that they don't want to have is probably rape. It's very difficult to prove, unfortunately. Drugging a person to force them to have sex is rape, but not violent.