Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Wudang]

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.

I'm sorry. I understood he was the women's lawyer acting on their behalf. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[eirik]

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



From the agreed facts


From Dagens Nyheter - written by Claes Borgström:
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.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[Wudang]

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

Well they didn't really say "No!" and don't have any bruises? Is that the argument? Was it not "legitimate rape"? I really can't believe this thread.

 

[nathan]

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

Not evidence, concrete or otherwise, of the US pressuring any country for extradition.

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.

It doesn't say anything about the Australian diplomats preparing for anything. Neither does it make any claims about the ease of extradition from anywhere. It certainly doesn't make any claims about the US subverting judicial systems.

 

[eirik]

Well they didn't really say "No!" and don't have any bruises? Is that the argument? Was it not "legitimate rape"? I really can't believe this thread.

I'm not sure. I think they're own pseudo law and pedantry have confused themselves as much as others.

 

[uke2se]

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.

Which will never happen until Assange quits hiding from justice. See the problem?

 

[uke2se]

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.

Claes Borgström is the attorney for the two women. He acts on their behalf. Nothing about his appointment is political. Stop lying.

 

[uke2se]

Well they didn't really say "No!" and don't have any bruises? Is that the argument? Was it not "legitimate rape"? I really can't believe this thread.

It is quite terrifying to see so many people that I considered rational actually make apologies for rape.

 

[Sabrina]

Not evidence, concrete or otherwise, of the US pressuring any country for extradition.



It doesn't say anything about the Australian diplomats preparing for anything. Neither does it make any claims about the ease of extradition from anywhere. It certainly doesn't make any claims about the US subverting judicial systems.

^^^^This

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Not evidence, concrete or otherwise, of the US pressuring any country for extradition.

No, you're right. But as I said before and as I'll say again - the fact that Australia is preparing for this possibility (contingency planning or not) shows that the Australian government, at any rate, considers it a real possibility i.e. not completely implausible as some in this thread seem to believe.

It doesn't say anything about the Australian diplomats preparing for anything.

Quite right, my mistake. Here is what it actually says:

The cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high-level US advice on "the direction and likely outcome of the investigation" and "reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange".

Which nonetheless supports my assertion above; namely, that Australia's government believes the possibility of extradition to the US from Sweden to be real enough.

As for Australian diplomats preparing for something, perhaps this will sate your fetishistic pedantry:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/au...to-us.aspx?PageID=238&NID=28070&NewsCatID=359

Australia confirmed Saturday that its diplomatic post in Washington had been preparing for Julian Assange's possible extradition to the US but played it down as "contingency planning".

Neither does it make any claims about the ease of extradition from anywhere. It certainly doesn't make any claims about the US subverting judicial systems.

Again, my comment was only that this showed the Australian government believes in the possibility of an eventual extradition to the US to face a wikileaks-related charge.

 

[Sabrina]

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's POSSIBLE that the US might try to extradite Assange. However, it's also possible that he'll turn himself in to Swedish authorities tomorrow and apologize for wasting their time (that'll be the day). The issue is the LIKELIHOOD of such an event occurring, and right now, the likelihood of Assange being extradited to the US is extremely low and has no evidence to support it beyond the suppositions of a few Australian diplomats who are not privy to the inner workings of the US government and the US judicial process.

The US has contingency planning in place should China, or North Korea, or even Russia, attack us without major provocation. The LIKELIHOOD of such an event is extremely low at this point in time, however, yet the preparations stay in place. Do you see now why we are dismissing the "preparations" of the Australian diplomats? One can be prepared for something and yet not expect it to happen barring some major change, you know.

 

[JihadJane]

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.

No, one who is also a politician with major political ambitions, even of becoming Prime Minister of Sweden, largely on the back of his “feminism”, and one whose law partner was involved in facilitating the US illegal "extraordinary rendition" (abduction/torture) program.

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

I was responding to eirik's unsourced assertion in kind.

This is the source of my statement:

'Assange And Sweden: Suspicious Behavior
The strange case of the WikiLeaks editor and the Swedish prosecutor ' pdf, page 24

From the agreed facts


From Dagens Nyheter - written by Claes Borgström:
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.

He was acting for his clients, in the legal sense, but that is not evidence that the women "appealed and won over the prosecutions decision to drop the case". Borgström was in the driving seat and Wilén's personal wishes don't appear to have been taken into consideration at all.

I notice that you haven't responded to my charge that you were splitting hairs, above.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Grow up, eirik.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's POSSIBLE that the US might try to extradite Assange. However, it's also possible that he'll turn himself in to Swedish authorities tomorrow and apologize for wasting their time (that'll be the day).

No, it's not. The Swedish authorities should really apologize to Assange for wasting his time. He stayed in Sweden for five weeks waiting for them to get their act together and offered to return to Sweden thereafter. For unknown reasons, the prosecutor, part of the same political milieu as Borgström and Ardin, took the drama queen route (Red Notice) normally reserved for terrorists etc, leading to years of stalemate.

The issue is the LIKELIHOOD of such an event occurring, and right now, the likelihood of Assange being extradited to the US is extremely low and has no evidence to support it beyond the suppositions of a few Australian diplomats who are not privy to the inner workings of the US government and the US judicial process.

Besides some homely, generalizing chatter, you haven't offered anything concrete as to why the likelihood is "extremely low"

You haven't given any reason why death threats against Assange emanating from the increasinly insane US body politic should not be taken seriously. Remember that Obama has already announced that Bradley Manning is guilty. How's that for a trustworthy judicial system?

The US has contingency planning in place should China, or North Korea, or even Russia, attack us without major provocation. The LIKELIHOOD of such an event is extremely low at this point in time, however, yet the preparations stay in place.

Yes, with the US as an aggressor nation in a state of ongoing collapse, forever seeking to expand its access to international markets, it is more likely to be the other way round!

Do you see now why we are dismissing the "preparations" of the Australian diplomats? One can be prepared for something and yet not expect it to happen barring some major change, you know.

We know that the US paranoia since 9/11 has enabled it rulers to pursue a path that is leading towards terrifying totalitarianism. It has repeatedly behaved as if it is above the law, nationally and internationally, with ruthless, often covert, brutality and violence.

 

[eirik]

"Fun" exercise: Google Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilen, the two women who reported Assange for rape and sexual molestation.

You will get nothing but appaling left-wing conspiracy-nuts slander and victim blaming, such as this garbage:

http://rixstep.com/2/20120515,00.shtml

Here is just one example:

Assange Case: Many Questions, Few Answers
50 good ones for starters.

1. How did Sofia Wilén get a seat at the 14 August gig when the event was sold out before she applied?

2. Why was Sofia Wilén so snippy in her testimony about a man she claimed she idolised?
(..)
7. Why was Anna Ardin so indifferent and even condescending towards Sofia Wilén whom she described as the 'random girl', the 'cashmere girl', someone too 'slow' for Julian Assange, and about whom she commented 'boobs make up for brains'?

8. Why did Peter Weiderud let Sofia Wilén attend the luncheon 14 August when so many people voiced their objections?

9. How did Peter Weiderud become acquainted with Sofia Wilén so quickly? Where is Peter Weiderud today?

10. What did Sofia Wilén say to Anna Ardin in their phone conversation the following week?

11. Why did Sofia Wilén insist on using condoms with the boyfriend she'd been living with for a year?

12.Who is Sofia Wilén's boyfriend Seth Benson? How did he and Sofia Wilén meet? How did he gain a residence permit in Sweden?

13. How was Sofia Wilén able to switch flats so quickly after the incident despite the acute housing shortage in Sweden?

14. Where has Sofia Wilén gone off to now?

15. How was Sofia Wilén able to hide her public records? Who intervened to make this possible?

16. How was Sofia Wilén able to so professionally wipe all her tracks online, to the extent even Google caches couldn't keep up?

And it gets worse. I haven't seen such jaq*ing of since trutherism peaked in 2006. I would say Assange's PR-firm has done a thorough job discrediting them.

 

[a_unique_person]

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?

It just indicates to me that even amongst the Swedish legal system, there are differences of opinion. If you do that here, there is an instant pile on of accusations of condoning rape and being a liar. I don't condone rape. First of all, if a 'victim' does not agree that there is a rape, then that must indicate some doubt about what happened.

There are also political aspects to this case that worry me. The 'leaking' from inside the prosecutors office of details to tabloid media indicates something odd about the prosecutors motives for the prosecution.

 

[trustbutverify]

"Fun" exercise: Google Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilen, the two women who reported Assange for rape and sexual molestation.

You will get nothing but appaling left-wing conspiracy-nuts slander and victim blaming, such as this garbage:

http://rixstep.com/2/20120515,00.shtml

Here is just one example:



And it gets worse. I haven't seen such jaq*ing of since trutherism peaked in 2006. I would say Assange's PR-firm has done a thorough job discrediting them.

I remember, early on, reading a lot of crap from the usual suspects that both women were CIA assets on a secret mission to entrap Assange.

 

[JihadJane]

Well they didn't really say "No!" and don't have any bruises? Is that the argument? Was it not "legitimate rape"? I really can't believe this thread.

Prosecutor Eva Finné, the first prosecutor to read the police dossier , almost immediately decided to rescind the arrest warrant: “I do not believe there is any reason to suspect that [Assange] has committed rape”, she announces, the only remaining suspicion being that Assange may have physically, but not sexually, molested Anna Ardin.

Bonkers, eh? I really can't believe these prosecutors! Was it not "legitimate rape", and other irrelevant appeals to emotion? Etc. etc.

In support of her accusation that Assange deliberately broke a condom during consensual sex, Ardin produces a damaged condom which DNA tests later show has never been used.

 

[eirik]

Prosecutor Eva Finné, the first prosecutor to read the police dossier , almost immediately decided to rescind the arrest warrant: “I do not believe there is any reason to suspect that [Assange] has committed rape”, she announces, the only remaining suspicion being that Assange may have physically, but not sexually, molested Anna Ardin.

And the decision was overturned by the chief prosecutor after the women appealed the decision.

As it happens everyday everywhere. That's why appeal processes exist in a hierarchy, to prevent wrong decisions.

But why am I even talking to you. You are a documented liar.

 

[eirik]

It just indicates to me that even amongst the Swedish legal system, there are differences of opinion.

There is, but not like you think. None of them supports the notion that lawful extraditions in such cases are to be ignored, and exactly none of them states that it's OK to interfere in an open police investigation in a rape case.

If you do that here, there is an instant pile on of accusations of condoning rape and being a liar. I don't condone rape. First of all, if a 'victim' does not agree that there is a rape, then that must indicate some doubt about what happened.

That's because you don't argue about the law, you ignore the law, since the courts have stated that the extradition is to be effected. The courts decision is not a matter of opinion.

There are also political aspects to this case that worry me. The 'leaking' from inside the prosecutors office of details to tabloid media indicates something odd about the prosecutors motives for the prosecution.

This is also your only point, and it is valid. Police leakage to the media is a problem, but if you have ever read a paper you will se that it happens every day. But press has a legal right to protect anonymous sources also from the courts, so investigations in these matters is often very difficult. Some convictions do occur though.

But I see the irony in your sudden worry about leakage of official documents. Are you saying that privacy and secrecy sometimes is a good thing?

 

[JihadJane]

"Fun" exercise: Google Anna Ardin or Sofia Wilen, the two women who reported Assange for rape and sexual molestation.

You will get nothing but appaling left-wing conspiracy-nuts slander and victim blaming, such as this garbage:

http://rixstep.com/2/20120515,00.shtml

Here is just one example:



And it gets worse. I haven't seen such jaq*ing of since trutherism peaked in 2006. I would say Assange's PR-firm has done a thorough job discrediting them.

There was, indeed, unsurprisingly, an unseemly eruption of conspiracy theories at the time. However, I wouldn't classify the list you have reproduced as an example as left-wing conspiracy-nut-slander,victim-blaming garbage. It appears, instead, that you are, as usual, just making shrill appeals to emotion (JMSATE), which is no more a useful an activity than concocting wild conspiracy theories.

Most of the questions on the list are legitimate enough questions to ask in a highly politicized case. How is investigation possible without asking questions? The police do it all the time.

However, I guess that for us mortals, asking questions is very dangerous and really has nothing to do with skepticism. Much better to just accept what the authorities say at face value because power knows best. Don't ask questions!

 

[JihadJane]

And the decision was overturned by the chief prosecutor after the women appealed the decision.

Chief prosecutor?

As it happens everyday everywhere. That's why appeal processes exist in a hierarchy, to prevent wrong decisions.

But why am I even talking to you.

So, are you saying that Eva Finné is bonkers and should be laughed out of town with derision, slander and accusations of being victim blamer and a rape apologist, with a big helping of shrill appeals to incredulity?

“I have discontinued the preliminary investigation
of the charge originally designated as rape. There
is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever. I have gone through the
interview with the complainant [Sofia Wilén].

“As previously noted, the information which has emerged from the
interview with the complainant is such that there is no longer any
suspicion of rape. This does not mean that I do not find her
testimony reliable. I have studied the interview to determine if
there are grounds for suspicion of some other crime, primarily
molestation or sexual molestation, but find that such is not the case
according to my analysis.” - Eva Finné

Åklagarmyndigheten, “Beslut i Assangeärendet”. 2010-08-25
www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyhetsarkiv/Beslut-i-Assangearendet-onsdag

You are a documented liar.

Well, eirik, it seems that, despite my suggestion, you are not going to grow up but are deeply wedded to your childish, pants-on-fire rhetoric. Therefore, please provide the documentation.