Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[uke2se]

Sorry, just noticed this and will now try to respond...

No one particular piece. Combination of US obviously wants to get hold of him. Rape charges seem odd (cue ridiculous accusations from some quarters that I'm now a rape apologist) in that they appeared to arise some time after consensual sex and apparent happiness thereafter* and seemed to carry little chance of actual prosecution ie won't it just be he said / she said (assuming there's not evidence I'm missing)? That was clearly the view of the initial prosecutor (though I was missing the fact that only one of the charges was dropped). I / we had also picked up on the second prosecutor possibly having political motivation (though I accept now that may well have been pro-Assange propaganda). And isn't the time to argue about condom use, at the time not later? ie if it was at the time and she wasn't happy, don't have sex (haven't heard suggestions about it being forced? As for the 'whilst I was asleep' - can't see anyone being able to prove that either way...he said / she said again.

Still confused why, on what is an innocent until proven guilty accusation, people seem so convinced he's a sleazeball** / rapist and I'm really uncertain about how the hell they're ever going to prove it if he is guilty. This should in no way be taken as excusing his actions if he is guilty.

I guess the simplistic notion we all had was 'Blimey, these women seemed happy to have sex with him, knew he was an 'international jet-setter' and therefore unlikely to be monogamous but decided days later that they were unhappy about it and now a government wants to extradite him to face rape charges. How scary is that?'.

This thread has added some further understanding but, to be honest, the level of vitriol (especially to anyone who doesn't automatically subscribe to the 'he's clearly a scumbag, rapist' camp) has put me off contributing further. Once again, I am not an Assange supporter - think he's a bit of a dick to be honest...though that doesn't make him a rapist - and if there's evidence to prosecute a case then he should face it but I'm surprised there's evidence and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he got off should he ever go to court.

*I freely admit I am no expert in how someone would behave after a rape and it's interesting that some say this is not atypical behaviour but just being honest that, with my casual interest in the case, admitted consensual sex followed by making the guy breakfast, tweets about hanging out with cool people etc did not match my (admitted inexpert) expectations...and I suspect would not match a juries either.

**Only reason I can see is refusing to take the STD test which is certainly not great behaviour but I wonder how I would react if someone who'd happily slept with me suddenly started demanding I take a test (not sure if he was aware of the molestation / rape charge at that point but that wouldn't help my mood about the whole thing!).

Let me explain where some of the vitriol comes from:

Rape-apologists (aka Assange-supporters) in this thread are - in their desire to get their hero off the hook - vilifying my nation and two innocent victims. It's the same reason for why I can be vitriolic towards twoofers. I don't take kindly to stupid people accusing innocent people.

 

[a_unique_person]

I will apologize for calling people rape-apologists right after they apologize for villifying the victims of rape, trying to diminish what happened and applauding the flight from justice of the accused.

Since I haven't done any of that, I'll assume you can't be referring to me, despite the fact you have been abusive.

 

[uke2se]

Since I haven't done any of that, I'll assume you can't be referring to me, despite the fact you have been abusive.

Then I take it you agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden post-haste to face rape charges?

ETA: The reason for my being harsh with you (not abusive) is that you have opined on matters where it was obvious you had no knowledge or had only heard Assange sycophants' version of events.

 

[a_unique_person]

Then I take it you agree that Assange should be extradited to Sweden post-haste to face rape charges?

ETA: The reason for my being harsh with you (not abusive) is that you have opined on matters where it was obvious you had no knowledge or had only heard Assange sycophants' version of events.

I wouldn't call the Austalian Lawyers Alliance 'sycophants', and they are asking why the interview can't be done overseas.

http://www.news.com.au/world/victim...ange-say-lawyers/story-fndir2ev-1226459390051

The Australian Lawyers Alliance said the talks could result in Assange's offer of asylum falling through and him sent to Sweden in a few weeks to face the charges though the body noted negotiations may stretch for much longer.

Alliance president Tony Kerin blamed Swedish authorities for the extradition deadlock.

He said Swedish police should come to Britain to interview Assange to determine if there was a case to answer against the Queensland-born activist.

There is also Geoffery Robiertson, a senior and respected civil rights lawyer defending Assange. Hardly a lunatic idiot.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3354730.htm

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: I don't think that that was ever the argument. The argument was that the prosecutrix was personally involved in the case and was not - it was - under the law requires a judicial authority to issue the warrant, and the argument was that the prosecutor was not a judicial authority. A policeman could not be a judicial authority yet Sweden argues that it is. So that's the technical legal point that is being argued in these proceedings.

TONY JONES: Well, yes, but you did have a witness who made all the points that I just made. It was a former - retired in fact Swedish appeal court judge.

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Certainly. There were people who - there was evidence from a Supreme Court judge in Sweden who was critical of the prosecutor having lost impartiality, but that was part of the argument: that a prosecutor can't be an independent authority, that it really should require a court.

TONY JONES: OK.

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: But the real issue ...

TONY JONES: Sorry, Geoffrey, but we're nearly out of time. I've just got to ask you this, because as you believe he will go to face prosecution in Sweden, do you think he ...

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: Well that's certainly on the cards now, yes.

TONY JONES: Do you think he should in fact? Because the one thing that no-one's been able to explain is why these two young women who made the allegations under tremendous pressure and a huge amount of publicity have actually stuck to their guns. They haven't retracted or recanted their allegations.

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: I've always said that these allegations of - which the Swedish prosecution system says is minor rape, which seems to me a contradiction in terms. Rape is a heinous offence. There should be no crime of minor rape with a couple of years' prison attached; it's very serious.

But that these charges should be faced down so long as he can be assured a fair trial and so long as there's no question of extraditing him to America at the end of it. They're the two conditions, but certainly they should be faced down.

 

[uke2se]

I wouldn't call the Austalian Lawyers Alliance 'sycophants', and they are asking why the interview can't be done overseas.

http://www.news.com.au/world/victim...ange-say-lawyers/story-fndir2ev-1226459390051

Maybe not Assange-sycophants, but definitely ignorant. Sorry to say this, but an Australian lawyer isn't necessarily an expert in Swedish law. In this case, certainly not.

I take it you don't need this man's question answered for you, as that has been done repeatedly over these last few pages.

There is also Geoffery Robiertson, a senior and respected civil rights lawyer defending Assange. Hardly a lunatic idiot.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3354730.htm

Crimes in Sweden are often graded. For example assault. There's different levels of assault, even though assault is a heinous crime.


Possibly not a lunatic idiot, but just as ignorant about the facts of the matter and of Swedish law as the lawyer in your previous example.

 

[nathan]

I wouldn't call the Austalian Lawyers Alliance 'sycophants', and they are asking why the interview can't be done overseas.

Why do you continue to promulgate this incorrect notion that JA is only wanted for questioning? As I and others have pointed out to you several times, that is not what he's being extradited for.

Can you please either stop repeating this canard, or explain exactly what you're confused about wrt to the scope of the extradition.

ETA: Do you think this issue wasn't raised during the extradition fight? Well, it was. If history was different, and it wasn't, JA must have the crappest lawyers in the world, given the number of times bystanders have asked this question.

 

[uke2se]

I think a lot of the controversy in this case stems from a lot of people opining about things they don't understand. An example is Swedish law. It's not exactly like US or Australian law. Some things differ. That's ok. We are allowed to do things differently here. Faux-experts should stop misinforming people.

 

[eirik]

AUP, Why do you trust lawyers so much all of a sudden? It's just strange that you have to find some random group of lawyers in some random place across the world to agree with you.

Australian Lawyers Alliance is not a lawyers guild of some sorts, though it sounds like one, it is a political left leaning group, and is demonstrably ignorant of at least Swedish and UK law, see in the following.

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/ala-us-guarantees-cant-be-trusted

Jonathan Davies (pictured), a criminal and immigration law expert and spokesperson for the ALA, told Lawyers Weekly that Assange can’t rely on diplomatic guarantees that he will not be pursued by the US if he goes to Sweden.

“The US is not in a position to give any assurances because its system is so vicious,” Davies said.

“The quasi-military judicial system in the US is scraping the bottom of the barrel to look for a way to turn what is essentially a politically-motivated act to one that deliberately seeks to strike at the heart of the sovereignty of the US.”

(..)

Davies said if Assange is extradited and found guilty of aiding and abetting the alleged treason of US private Bradley Manning it is likely he will face the death penalty.

(..)

Davies also questioned the refusal by Swedish authorities to accept Assange’s request to be questioned in the UK.

“There is no reason why a Swedish court could not be convened in the UK and a Swedish prison sentence be served in the UK – or Australia for that matter – following a guilty verdict in a Swedish court,” he said.

Death penalty is now likely, according to this gentleman. Well, then the Swedes surely must drop their flimsy little rape case.

And Swedish courts should convene in the UK for a crime in Sweden. That's a first Uhm, if Sweden had jurisdiction in the UK, then this whole running and hiding from the Swedes in the UK would be moot.

Me think he confused by political bias and ignorance of law.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why do you continue to promulgate this incorrect notion that JA is only wanted for questioning? As I and others have pointed out to you several times, that is not what he's being extradited for.

Can you please either stop repeating this canard, or explain exactly what you're confused about wrt to the scope of the extradition.

ETA: Do you think this issue wasn't raised during the extradition fight? Well, it was. If history was different, and it wasn't, JA must have the crappest lawyers in the world, given the number of times bystanders have asked this question.

I was pointing out the error of this Assange rape loving acolytes involves people who aren't.

 

[nathan]

I was pointing out the error of this Assange rape loving acolytes involves people who aren't.

No. You weren't.

You're posting articles claiming that interviewing outside of Sweden would be satisfactory, and claiming the authors of those articles are not JA sycophants. At no point do you clarify that the claim they're making is fallacious.

After posting http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8564505#post8564505, you claimed you weren't repeating the claim about extradition-for-just-questioning, merely 'quoting the BBC'.

As isn't the first time you've pulled this trick, I can only conclude you're intentionally trying to resurrect a proven falsehood.

If you still claim you're trying to point out that this error is made by non-sycophants. What's your point? We know it's a common mistake.

 

[a_unique_person]

No. You weren't.

You're posting articles claiming that interviewing outside of Sweden would be satisfactory, and claiming the authors of those articles are not JA sycophants. At no point do you clarify that the claim they're making is fallacious.

After posting http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8564505#post8564505, you claimed you weren't repeating the claim about extradition-for-just-questioning, merely 'quoting the BBC'.

As isn't the first time you've pulled this trick, I can only conclude you're intentionally trying to resurrect a proven falsehood.

If you still claim you're trying to point out that this error is made by non-sycophants. What's your point? We know it's a common mistake.

Did you miss the new comments abusing people who don't think the correct thoughts? That there are only two aspects to this issue, you either think what they think, or you are an Assange acolyte who loves to see women raped. If you read the interview I linked to with Robertson, or the women's lawyer, you will realise that the issue is more nuanced and complex than a simple dichotomy.

 

[Here_to_learn]

If you read the interview I linked to with Robertson,

It's quite an amazing interview. To be in that position, and either be lying or so ignorant on what he is talking about.

But, first of all, that interview was in 2011, before they lost the last appeal, so some of the things he brings up has since been settled, and his argument was found incorrect.

this warrant was signed and sealed by a prosecutor who is - rather likes publicity and rather determined to get after him, an over-zealous prosecutor, and in many people's view it should come from a court, not from a partisan prosecutor.

But it was requested by the prosecutor, and then granted by a court.

I think more importantly, he's going to be tried in secret, and this is outrageous by our standards and by any standards. It'll be secret justice. They hold rape trials customarily in secret.

Well, actually not in secret, but in privacy. This is not required in the law, instead it's something that allowed by law, and is decided in each trial, and the reason is to protect the privacy of the person/persons involved. Both the accused and the victims. (Kind of late in this specific case.)

He will also be tried - they don't have a jury, they have a judge and two retired hack politicians, one from each party.

Isn't that a wonderful way to describe another country's legal system? The lay judges that he calles retired hack politicians are nominated by a political party, but does not have to be retired politicians. And we do have more than two parties in Sweden, so he didn't even get that right. And of course, the number of lay judges changes depending on which court you are in.

Its government is being advised by Karl Rove as we speak

Certainly not. You can see one person researching that rumor here. (Swedish)

 

[theprestige]

Hemingway - For sale: one condom, never used.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I wouldn't call the Austalian Lawyers Alliance 'sycophants', and they are asking why the interview can't be done overseas.

I would. They are a far left wing group of nutjobs, sandal wearers and greenies.

There is also Geoffery Robiertson, a senior and respected civil rights lawyer defending Assange. Hardly a lunatic idiot.

Also an extreme left leaning lawyer.

Australian Lawyers Alliance is not a lawyers guild of some sorts, though it sounds like one, it is a political left leaning group, and is demonstrably ignorant of at least Swedish and UK law, see in the following.

Correct

Me think he confused by political bias and ignorance of law.

I don't think anyone could fault you there.
Bravo!

 

[JihadJane]

Isn't that a wonderful way to describe another country's legal system? The lay judges that he calles retired hack politicians are nominated by a political party, but does not have to be retired politicians. And we do have more than two parties in Sweden, so he didn't even get that right. And of course, the number of lay judges changes depending on which court you are in.

Judicial systems are always prone to politcal corruption. Reality isn't always wonderful.

Where, in that sentence, do I say that Bodström is involved in the Assange case?

Nowhere, and I have never claimed that you have. Don't try to move the goal posts.

Really...

You claimed that Borgströms partner was involved - please show your sources that he actually was involved.

But even though you say that Bodström is not involved, you still find it important to say things about him with relations to Borgström.

Because, in the circumstances, it's pertinent.

But, back to my question, you claim that Bodström was involved "in facilitating the US illegal "extraordinary rendition" (abduction/torture) program", please show your sources.

'Bodström reported over CIA terror deportations'

 

[JihadJane]

Certainly not. You can see one person researching that rumor here. (Swedish)

Certainly maybe.

"Before Karl became known as “The Architect” of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, non-partisan causes, and non-profit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional, and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden."

http://www.rove.com/bio

 

[Here_to_learn]

Certainly maybe.

"Before Karl became known as “The Architect” of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, non-partisan causes, and non-profit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional, and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden."

http://www.rove.com/bio

Exactly. And if you follow up on that, you can find out exactly what Moderaterna has used him for, and when that was. It's even in Wikipedia.

"His clients included" - not "his clients right now are".

 

[Here_to_learn]

'Bodström reported over CIA terror deportations'

You do understand that reported is not the same as actually have taken part in it?

From your own source:

Former justice minister Thomas Bodström stands by his version of events that he did not know that CIA agents would conduct the expulsion when the government decided to expel the pair on December 18th 2001. Bodström said that he only became aware of CIA involvement on January 7th 2002, at a meeting with the then head of the security police (Säpo).

"I have said all this before and am prepared to do so again for the constitutional committee," Bodström said on Monday to news agency TT on his way home to Sweden from Australia.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Judicial systems are always prone to politcal corruption. Reality isn't always wonderful.

And it turns out that reality actually is measured, and Transparency International reports that Sweden ranks number 3 in the world in this regard.

The UK ranks 11, Australia 13, US 36 and Ecuador ranks 130 (out of 142).

So from that standpoint, the Sweden is one of the countries in the word where there's least risk that political corruption affects the legal system.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Really...

I realized that maybe I should have commented on your "Really" also, even though everybody can read exactly what "involvement" I was asking about, you even quoted it yourself in your post - the involvement "in facilitating the US illegal "extraordinary rendition".

You have now shown your source, and as I posted above, it does not support your statement.