Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Captain.Sassy]

Why, is your analogy falling apart?

No. Your response to it didn't make sense.

In my analogy, seeking to avoid the return to Sweden is 'crossing the street'. In your attempted extension of the analogy this same action is 'running from police'. That's why your extension of the analogy isn't logically consistent and I answered you with a bunch of question marks.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Why? You have clearly shown that you have no interest in facts, and will recycle this claim redardless.

I'm asking someone else about a source. I do care about facts.

You don't care about facts.

To wit:
you consistently talk about Assange as if the rape allegations had been proven and he had been convicted. He hasn't even faced trial yet.

 

[TjW]

From the "Four Corners" Story.



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

Certainly. See any number of statutory rape cases.

 

[Wudang]

No, and that's why the women appealed and won over the prosecutions decision to drop the case.

This is overlooked by many people pushing the "not really rape as such" story.

 

[nathan]

Harald Ullman, who is the owner of the PR firm hired by Assange to fight extradition.

Oh, well, no wonder he lost the extradition fight, he should have hired a lawyer!

 

[eirik]

No. Your response to it didn't make sense.

In my analogy, seeking to avoid the return to Sweden is 'crossing the street'. In your attempted extension of the analogy this same action is 'running from police'. That's why your extension of the analogy isn't logically consistent and I answered you with a bunch of question marks.

Wait, are you saying Assange *isn't running from the police? I don't know if you have noticed, there has been a court decision, and he is currently hiding in an embassy surrounded by police.

And where is the rape case is your analog? Deemed unimportant and not worth consideration?

 

[eirik]

Oh, well, no wonder he lost the extradition fight, he should have hired a lawyer!

lol..

 

[Here_to_learn]

This is discretionary, which would explain why the case was initially dropped.

This is getting ridiculous.

I give a statement, fully sourced, that answers a specific question.

Your answer consists of two parts. Neither of which is sourced in any way.

The first one is wrong, as you can see if you would have read the source link I included. Rape is not among the types of crime where the there is not an absolute duty to prosecute. If you claim that you are correct, you need to show a source that would be considered a better source than the Swedish Prosecution Service - for example the Swedish law.

The second part of your statement is speculation, but still wrong. Since if you read in the agreed facts, that has been linked so many times, you can see:

* The case was not dropped initially, it was dropped by the second prosecutor
* If was not dropped since she decided to ignore evidence, but because she didn't think there was evidence of a crime. The 1st and 3rd prosecutor, as well as two courts disagree.

Could we please try to have some quality in the discussions?

 

[BenBurch]

Nobody will answer my question; What if he really did rape those women? Should he walk because he is your living god?

 

[JihadJane]

* The case was not dropped initially, it was dropped by the second prosecutor

This is splitting hairs (aka pedantry). Less than one day after the arrest warrant is issued can fairly be considered "initially".

 

[WildCat]

This is splitting hairs (aka pedantry). Less than one day after the arrest warrant is issued can fairly be considered "initially".

Uh, no. "Initially" has to do with order, not time.

 

[BenBurch]

JihadJane - was it OK if he raped those women to just let him go?

Is rape not an important crime to you?

Do you think rape should be legal?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Nobody will answer my question; What if he really did rape those women? Should he walk

No. He shouldn't. He should face sanction proportionate to the gravity of the crime and in accordance with the law so long as it comes about as the result of an impartial and transparent legal process.

because he is your living god?

How infantile.

 

[nathan]

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

Thanks, that's speculation that the US would like to prosecute JA.

It's not evidence that the US has corrupted the judicial system in Sweden & the UK though. Nor is it evidence that extradition from Sweden after being extradited there from the UK would be easier than extraditing straight from the UK.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Thanks, that's speculation that the US would like to prosecute JA.

It's not evidence that the US has corrupted the judicial system in Sweden & the UK though. Nor is it evidence that extradition from Sweden after being extradited there from the UK would be easier than extraditing straight from the UK.

No, it's not concrete evidence that the US intends to pressure Sweden for extradition to the US.

However, the fact that the Australian foreign service is preparing for this possibility definitely suggests it is reasonable to believe that a US request for extradition is possible.

 

[BenBurch]

No, it's not concrete evidence that the US intends to pressure Sweden for extradition to the US.

However, the fact that the Australian foreign service is preparing for this possibility definitely suggests it is reasonable to believe that a US request for extradition is possible.

BS. It isn't anything of the sort.

 

[JihadJane]

No, and that's why the women appealed and won over the prosecutions decision to drop the case.

This is overlooked by many people pushing the "not really rape as such" story.

Eirik's assertion is mistaken.

It was the request of Claes Borgström, a political lawyer, not the women, that the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reactivated the case.

 

[eirik]

Eirik's assertion is mistaken.

It was the request of Claes Borgström, a political lawyer, not the women, that the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reactivated the case.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

What's a "political lawyer"? The sort of lawyer who represents rape victims? If so, you are correct.

 

[eirik]

A think I see a pattern. The victims in this case is an uncomfortable piece of the conspiracy they puzzled. So they must be eliminated in the narrative.

So you have to construct lie after lie:

1. The women don't *really* accuse Assange of rape, that's the Swedish police co-operating with USA.

2. Likewise, the women didn't "really* appeal to the prosecution that the case was dropped, it was by a totally unrelated "political lawyer". Appearantly anyone can appeal any decision in Sweden.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Eirik's assertion is mistaken.

So why do you then just assert something without including any sources for your statement?

It was the request of Claes Borgström, a political lawyer, not the women, that the prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reactivated the case.

From the agreed facts

Meanwhile, on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutor’s decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Goteborg

From Dagens Nyheter - written by Claes Borgström:

Sedan chefsåklagaren Eva Finné lagt ned förundersökningen gällande våldtäkt och sexuellt ofredande begärde jag, på uppdrag av mina klienter, den 27 augusti hos Utvecklingscentrum i Göteborg att Finnés beslut skulle överprövas.

My bolding.

Google translage/my fixes:

After Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné dropped preliminary investigation concerning rape and sexual assault, I requested, acting for my clients, Aug. 27 at the Development Centre in Gothenburg that the decision should be reviewed.