Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Here_to_learn]

I'm sorry for the confusion. It never crossed my mind that anyone but the most politically expedient was still trying to deny "feminist" Bodström's part in making once neutral, peace-promoting Sweden the first country in the world to collaborate with the USA's not so wonderful, "War on Terror" torture outsourcing program.

So this is what it comes to when it turned out that you didn't have any sources for your statement, and that in fact the one source you finally showed contradicted you.

But I guess the advantage for you of making sweeping statements like this one, is that no one really bothers to ask you to show sources.

But let's take your source to the full conclusion. The one source you showed earlier regarding this said that Bodström has been "reported". That did not lead to any actions however. But since you now say that being "reported" is enough for you to come to the conclusion that he was involved, why does not that hold for all other situations? By using the same logic, why should anyone deny that JA is a rapist?

And just to make things clear - this is not my view. I do not make up my mind on guilt based on someones political standpoint - I believe in due process of the law, regardless of if another persons political views is different from my own.

 

[JihadJane]

So this is what it comes to when it turned out that you didn't have any sources for your statement, and that in fact the one source you finally showed contradicted you.

But I guess the advantage for you of making sweeping statements like this one, is that no one really bothers to ask you to show sources.

But let's take your source to the full conclusion. The one source you showed earlier regarding this said that Bodström has been "reported". That did not lead to any actions however. But since you now say that being "reported" is enough for you to come to the conclusion that he was involved, why does not that hold for all other situations? By using the same logic, why should anyone deny that JA is a rapist?

And just to make things clear - this is not my view. I do not make up my mind on guilt based on someones political standpoint - I believe in due process of the law, regardless of if another persons political views is different from my own.

The article references Eva Franchell's book.

The Aftonbladet newspaper, which reviewed an advance copy of the book, entitled Väninnan: Rapport från Rosenbad (‘Girlfriend: an account from Rosenbad’), wrote in its Sunday edition that the United Sates wanted the CIA to help with the deportations of the Egyptians, threatening to implement a trade boycott against the EU if its wishes weren’t met.

“I don’t know exactly how serious the threat was, but I’ve had it confirmed by many sources that Sweden was under a huge amount of pressure,” said Franchell.

She also describes that the justice minister at the time, Thomas Bodström, was made aware of the case the same as Anna Lindh, December 17th, 2001 – the day before the deportations took place.

“It’s confirmed by an email which I was given,” said Franchell.

'Sweden pressured in 2001 terror case: report'

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

January 11, 2012 photo of protest in front of Sweden’s Parliament against Court discrimination. The Swedish portions of the sign read: “Cronyism in Uppsala. Nonsense in law; Nonsense in justice; Who cares about minorities in Uppsala District Court; To lie under oath is risk free in Uppsala District Court. I will have Justice.”

A far right legacy

Contrary to Sweden’s image as a fastidiously correct bastion of progressive thought, seldom appreciated facts of this nation’s history highlight there’s indeed another and far darker side to this state. It is a side that’s neither very pretty nor nice, but one that a well-known newspaper editor here privately told me he believes the country is again reverting to. It is a side that created the world’s first racial biology institute in 1922, the Statens institut för rasbiologi (SIFR), the SIFR subsequently associated with the forced sterilization of 63,000 (over 90% being women) in a program only ending in the mid-1970s. And, it is a side that even allowed some Swedes to serve as Nazi concentration camp guards at Treblinka, a death factory where 900,000 Jews were ‘exterminated’.

'Living as a ‘subhuman’ in Sweden'

 

[uke2se]

I'm sorry for the confusion. It never crossed my mind that anyone but the most politically expedient was still trying to deny "feminist" Bodström's part in making once neutral, peace-promoting Sweden the first country in the world to collaborate with the USA's not so wonderful, "War on Terror" torture outsourcing program.

 

[uke2se]

The article references Eva Franchell's book.




'Sweden pressured in 2001 terror case: report'

So, no evidence Bodström was involved. Just one person's assertion that Sweden was under a lot of "pressure".

Also, still no relevance to the Assange rape case which, in case you've forgotten, is what this thread is about.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26389503f2dc63c657.jpg[/qimg]

January 11, 2012 photo of protest in front of Sweden’s Parliament against Court discrimination. The Swedish portions of the sign read: “Cronyism in Uppsala. Nonsense in law; Nonsense in justice; Who cares about minorities in Uppsala District Court; To lie under oath is risk free in Uppsala District Court. I will have Justice.”




'Living as a ‘subhuman’ in Sweden'

So, no real evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Swedish government. Just some anecdotes about what someone told someone else about how he/she feels Sweden is going to hell.

Also, no relevance to the Assange rape case, just more of the same attempted vilification of Sweden as a nation by JihadJane.

Just a FYI: Trying to paint a country as corrupted using laughable anecdotal evidence when real evidence of measured corruption (Sweden being among the least corrupted nations in the world) is in the thread makes you look even more like a desperate liar.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The article references Eva Franchell's book.

Yes, a book. Not a decision in Konstitutionsutskottet or Justitieombudsmannen. So you got nothing but allegations.

 

[eirik]

Oh no! Some Swedes were nazis!!

Surely this must have some bearing in the rape case.

 

[eirik]

The article references Eva Franchell's book.

You mean the Eva Franchell deeming Assange not a rebel, but nothing more than a neo-liberal narcissist who is mostly concerned with himself?

Who says his fear of being extradited to the United States is paranoid?

(translated by google, fixed by me)
http://www.aftonbladet.se/ledare/ledarkronika/evafranchell/article14901596.ab

Online campaigns for Julian Paul Assange continues with unchanged intensity. The long legal process has damaged the two women, as they are demonised and ridiculed by Assanges support troops. The victims are already doomed.

I agree with her. But I guess in the last 30 minutes, she has gone from inquiring truth seeker to just another corrupted nazi-swede in the increasingly bizarre JihadJane-land.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

This is a fairly good article. Quite balanced:
http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/786821--julian-assange-self-made-martyr

This is even interestinger:
http://nonviolentconflict.wordpress...osander-of-the-swedish-prosecution-authority/

Notable quotable:

Karin Rosander: The prosecutor has stated that, according to circumstances in the investigation, her opinion is that it is necessary he is present in Sweden. And she hasn’t stated exactly what circumstances, but that’s her statements.

Martha Kearney: But isn’t it the case that Swedish prosecutors have gone abroad to question defendants in serious cases at other times?

Karin Rosander: Yes, that’s true, it has happened. And it’s for the individual- it’s for the prosecutor to decide which measures to take. So it’s all about what the prosecutor decides to do.
...
Martha Kearney: But, what you’re saying is there are circumstances in this case that makes it very different. It’s hard to understand what they might be.

Karin Rosander: Yeah, and the prosecutor hasn’t stated exactly what kind of circumstance- what circumstances, but that’s her decision.

In other words, Assange has to come to Sweden cause the prosecutor says so, and won't give any other reason.

Probably completely innocuous, but it would make me suspicious...

 

[BenBurch]

So, two people who don't know the answer and haven't asked for it is somehow proof of perfidy? Look, I am trying hard to find where you guys have anything at all, but you keep trolling out stuff like this.

What is the one best piece of evidence you imagine you have?

Show us that and let's let the argument be decided on that one thing.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Well I thought some people were saying Assange had to go to Sweden and couldn't be interviewed in the UK because Swedish law forbade it...

For example:

They want him to answer questions. The outcome of the interview determines if he is to be arrested or not. It's a legal formality in the Swedish judiciary system. It needs to take place on Swedish soil.

...and then all kinds of people were flailing their electronic arms in the air and spitting about how any and everyone who was skeptical about how this case was proceeding was a rape apologist with no understanding of Swedish law and should just shut up.


The communications rep for the Swedish prosecutor's office actually seems to say that this isn't the case that the interview needs to be in Sweden... well, it may be the case inasmuch as the prosecutor gets to decide whether or not the interview needs to be in Sweden, but it doesn't seem like her hands are tied in any way on this...

 

[Here_to_learn]

In other words, Assange has to come to Sweden cause the prosecutor says so, and won't give any other reason.

Probably completely innocuous, but it would make me suspicious...

It's probably one of the more unclear areas.

The prosecutor has stated to the English courts that the intention is not just to interview, but (assuming that no new information comes up), to charge.

There might very well be a part of "we'll, he's not getting away with running to the UK just because he is famous, I've got the law on my side, he should come here" from the prosecutors side. Now we know that she does in fact have the law on her side, so if she wants JA in Sweden, the law says that he should come. Anything else might be allowed in the law (from what I understand), but there is nothing (again from what I understand) that forces the prosecutor to agree to interview outside of Sweden.

Of course, since the prosecutors stated intention and expectation is to charge JA, it wouldn't help to interview him in for example the Ecuador embassy in London, since we would probably just end up in a new deadlock where he would refuse to come.

Or has JA promised to give himself up if/when he is charged?

 

[Here_to_learn]

And of course, the official statement from the Prosecution Authority is here:

[...]
The prosecutor’s assessment is that, for the purpose of the investigation, Mr Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation. Without going into the details about the work of the investigation, it can be mentioned that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation to date. When continuing the investigation there is also a need to be able to carry out supplementary interviews, as required, with Mr Assange and the other persons involved.

Under Swedish law the defendant must be present in person at the trial in cases involving this type of crime. If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange, his personal presence is required in Sweden so that a trial can be held and any sentence enforced. The court’s detention order means that Mr Assange has been detained to ensure this.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

/\/\/\
Yeah, that says he has to be there for a trial and that the prosecutor has decided she wants him there for the interview in question. Basically the same as what the comms officer said.

Dunno if he's said he'll give himself up when / if charged.

Also, has the US unequivocally stated it would not seek extradition of Assange and that he will not face trial over Wikileaks in the US?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Also, has the US unequivocally stated it would not seek extradition of Assange and that he will not face trial over Wikileaks in the US?

No, why should they?

 

[eirik]

They are probably going to charge him. For *that* he has to be in Sweden.

The prosecutor is in charge of the investigation and the measures taken, and it is long decided they have sound legal grounds for the EAW.

And they don't care what you or any other leftist Assange acolyte think, a criminal investigation is not an open democatic process.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

No, why should they?

Well if they wanted to settle an internet debate it would sure help out the 'America doesn't care what happens to Assange' camp...

 

[Here_to_learn]

Well if they wanted to settle an internet debate it would sure help out the 'America doesn't care what happens to Assange' camp...

I don't think the US really cares about Internet debates...

But, I can't see the legal possibility to do that? That would be same thing as saying - Regardless of what evidence we have today, or what evidence we will get tomorrow, we will not charge him.

I don't think any state can/should give full immunity to a person like that.

 

[eirik]

Also, has the US unequivocally stated it would not seek extradition of Assange and that he will not face trial over Wikileaks in the US?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I don't think the US really cares about Internet debates...

But, I can't see the legal possibility to do that? That would be same thing as saying - Regardless of what evidence we have today, or what evidence we will get tomorrow, we will not charge him.

I don't think any state can/should give full immunity to a person like that.

They could easily issue a statement to the effect of 'Assange's actions in posting the leaked documents to the internet are not in contravention of US laws and so the US won't seek to have him extradited for this action'. That leaves open prosecution if he does something bad in the future.

 

[Here_to_learn]

They could easily issue a statement to the effect of 'Assange's actions in posting the leaked documents to the internet are not in contravention of US laws and so the US won't seek to have him extradited for this action'. That leaves open prosecution if he does something bad in the future.

But who are "They"? From what I can understand only a court could make that legal statement, and they require a case to rule on.