Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[trustbutverify]

Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Fanatic subtype.

From Wikipedia;

Fanatic narcissist – including paranoid features. An individual whose self-esteem was severely arrested during childhood, who usually displays major paranoid tendencies, and who holds on to an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting delusions of insignificance and lost value, and trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition or support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.

Do you think someone who claimed to have been accepted into "The Illuminati" would fall into this classification?

 

[JihadJane]

Do you think someone who claimed to have been accepted into "The Illuminati" would fall into this classification?

Psychobabble.

From Wikipedia:

"Psychobabble is … a set of repetitive verbal formalities that kills off the very spontaneity, candour, and understanding it pretends to promote. It’s an idiom that reduces psychological insight to a collection of standardized observations, that provides a frozen lexicon to deal with an infinite variety of problems."

 

[nathan]

The point is that there is conflicting evidence.

Conflicting evidence in general about JA, or conflicting evidence that he's wanted in Sweden *only* for questioning? Again, you're being sufficiently vague I can't tell.

For the latter contention, the evidence for that claim being untrue are statements by the Swedish prosecutor, defence lawyer, UK extradition proceedings, and legally qualified commentators. On the other hand there's things like the BBC article, which mention he's wanted for questioning, but do not claim that's the only reason -- although that would be a reasonable interpretation, if there was no other evidence. IMHO it's just sloppy wording that has been repeated and led to the fallacious claim.

For example, the claim that the US is after [him?] was said to be a baseless, paranoid fantasy. But I have provided evidence that it is not baseless.

Sorry, I must have missed that. Could you point me at your post with that evidence?

 

[JihadJane]

Conflicting evidence in general about JA, or conflicting evidence that he's wanted in Sweden *only* for questioning? Again, you're being sufficiently vague I can't tell.

There is certainly conflicting evidence about what Assange is alleged to have done, not to mention conflicts of interest amongst the prosecutors and police.

 

[a_unique_person]

Conflicting evidence in general about JA, or conflicting evidence that he's wanted in Sweden *only* for questioning? Again, you're being sufficiently vague I can't tell.

For the latter contention, the evidence for that claim being untrue are statements by the Swedish prosecutor, defence lawyer, UK extradition proceedings, and legally qualified commentators. On the other hand there's things like the BBC article, which mention he's wanted for questioning, but do not claim that's the only reason -- although that would be a reasonable interpretation, if there was no other evidence. IMHO it's just sloppy wording that has been repeated and led to the fallacious claim.



Sorry, I must have missed that. Could you point me at your post with that evidence?

This post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8560277&postcount=2036

 

[JihadJane]

'Britain withdraws threat to raid Ecuador’s embassy'

"The announcement comes a day after all the members of the Organization of American States, except for the US and Canada, stated their support of Ecuador in relation to Assange’s saga."

 

[uke2se]

There is certainly conflicting evidence about what Assange is alleged to have done, not to mention conflicts of interest amongst the prosecutors and police.

Nope.

 

[uke2se]

'Britain withdraws threat to raid Ecuador’s embassy'

"The announcement comes a day after all the members of the Organization of American States, except for the US and Canada, stated their support of Ecuador in relation to Assange’s saga."

Ah, Russia Today, the final bastion of dictator-groupies all over the world.

 

[Sabrina]

This post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8560277&postcount=2036

So, speculation on the part of Australian diplomats as to the actions of a grand jury convened to "look into the Wikileaks case" are to be accepted as evidence now?

Isn't it just as likely that the grand jury was convened to assess Manning's charges alone? The fact that he's being charged under UCMJ doesn't negate the fact that he can still be charged under federal laws as well; it's rare, but sometimes a soldier is charged under both law systems, as double jeopardy doesn't apply in that case; UCMJ and federal law are two entirely separate law systems. Usually what will happen is federal prosecutors and military prosecutors will agree as to who has jurisdiction. But given the unique nature of this case, I think it's relatively likely that he'd be tried under both court systems; military first, as that is currently ongoing, followed by federal. I don't deny that Assange is showing his paranoia, but I have yet to see any concrete evidence that the US is actually planning to charge him with anything.

 

[a_unique_person]

From the "Four Corners" Story.

Three days later on August 20th, Wilen, accompanied by Ardin went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm to seek advice about whether Assange could be forced to take an STD test. Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen. Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.

Can you prosecute someone for rape if the "victim" doesn't believe it is rape?

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

So, speculation on the part of Australian diplomats as to the actions of a grand jury convened to "look into the Wikileaks case" are to be accepted as evidence now?

Isn't it just as likely that the grand jury was convened to assess Manning's charges alone? The fact that he's being charged under UCMJ doesn't negate the fact that he can still be charged under federal laws as well; it's rare, but sometimes a soldier is charged under both law systems, as double jeopardy doesn't apply in that case; UCMJ and federal law are two entirely separate law systems. Usually what will happen is federal prosecutors and military prosecutors will agree as to who has jurisdiction. But given the unique nature of this case, I think it's relatively likely that he'd be tried under both court systems; military first, as that is currently ongoing, followed by federal. I don't deny that Assange is showing his paranoia, but I have yet to see any concrete evidence that the US is actually planning to charge him with anything.

The Diplomats are not showing 'paranoia', but making professional judgements based on the evidence they have. Not unless you think they are as susceptible to the same paranoia as Assange.

 

[Korren]

Can you prosecute someone for rape if the "victim" doesn't believe it is rape?

Yes, of course you can.

 

[barium]

Here is an excellent account of Assange's trip to Sweden, mostly informed by the Police Protocol I referred to above and other sources. A useful resource; well worth familiarizing yourself with if you're interested in grasping the factual nitty gritty of the case.

An often surreal tale emerges!

Assange And Sweden: Suspicious Behavior
The strange case of the WikiLeaks editor and the Swedish prosecutor pdf

- Nordic New Network www.nnn.se

You do know that one of the main figures behind NNN is Harald Ullman, who is the owner of the PR firm hired by Assange to fight extradition. Right?

Not the most objective site.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Can you prosecute someone for rape if the "victim" doesn't believe it is rape?

I posted this only two days ago. Please read the quote in that post, or follow the link to the source.

[...]that should not affect it at all. Swedish prosecutors has an absolute duty to prosecute:

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And I have to say, having dealt with some sociopaths (actually diagnosed as such) he would fit right in.

Ditto.

From the "Four Corners" Story.

Can you prosecute someone for rape if the "victim" doesn't believe it is rape?

I would assume so. Similar to a domestic violence type assault here and elsewhere; once it has been reported (or witnessed by third parties), even if the victim withdraws the claim it will proceed anyway.

 

[Sabrina]

The Diplomats are not showing 'paranoia', but making professional judgements based on the evidence they have. Not unless you think they are as susceptible to the same paranoia as Assange.

No, they're speculating at best. There is no concrete evidence that Assange is being targeted by the US beyond the suppositions of a few diplomats in Australia based on what they ASSUME a grand jury in Alexandria has been convened for. They have no access to any documentation that states unequivocally that we plan to target Assange himself; all documentation mentioned in that article referred to "Wikileaks", not Assange himself, as a POTENTIAL target of charges, but it's entirely possible that the grand jury reached a decision that we cannot charge Wikileaks with anything and have turned their attention to the culprit we have in custody, namely Bradley Manning. The evidence of his guilt in providing classified documentation to persons not cleared or authorized to view the documents is concrete, unlike speculations from diplomats who are not privy to the actual workings of the US Judicial system. So I will accept that such suppositions on their part contribute to Assange's paranoia, but not that it provides any concrete evidence of an intent on the part of the US to charge Assange with ANYTHING.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, of course you can.

With statutory rape you can, because it involves sex with a minor, the woman in question is not a minor, and did not believe she was raped, she wanted to have the matter an STD cleared up.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, they're speculating at best. There is no concrete evidence that Assange is being targeted by the US beyond the suppositions of a few diplomats in Australia based on what they ASSUME a grand jury in Alexandria has been convened for. They have no access to any documentation that states unequivocally that we plan to target Assange himself; all documentation mentioned in that article referred to "Wikileaks", not Assange himself, as a POTENTIAL target of charges, but it's entirely possible that the grand jury reached a decision that we cannot charge Wikileaks with anything and have turned their attention to the culprit we have in custody, namely Bradley Manning. The evidence of his guilt in providing classified documentation to persons not cleared or authorized to view the documents is concrete, unlike speculations from diplomats who are not privy to the actual workings of the US Judicial system. So I will accept that such suppositions on their part contribute to Assange's paranoia, but not that it provides any concrete evidence of an intent on the part of the US to charge Assange with ANYTHING.

Going on the palpable hatred for Assange demonstrated here, what are the odds a Grand Jury is going to settle for Manning?

 

[Korren]

With statutory rape you can, because it involves sex with a minor, the woman in question is not a minor, and did not believe she was raped, she wanted to have the matter an STD cleared up.

You can do that for any crime. In general, the state doesn't require any kind of statement or cooperation from the victims at all in order to investigate or prosecute a crime. In particular, the victims' understanding of the relevant laws has no bearing on the decision to prosecute. The victims have neither the responsibility nor the legal power to interpret laws.

 

[Korren]

Going on the palpable hatred for Assange demonstrated here, what are the odds a Grand Jury is going to settle for Manning?

What a silly question.