Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[TjW]

After this has been explained to you (yet again), is there still something you fail to understand?

This

3. Interviewing outside of Sweden is at the the prosecutors discretion,

Oh. Okay. "Prosecutor's discretion" means that the prosecutor gets to decide whether the interview is held in Sweden or not. Not the interviewee, not the internet. HTH

 

[a_unique_person]

this:

It's not just about interviewing.

They did rule against it, in deference to the Swedish Legal System, which, according to your explanation, gives the prosecutor the discretion to have the interview locally or overseas. That is, why not remove one of Assange's complaints and have the interview in GB, if it is in her power to do so? It would give him one less leg to stand on. He would still wind up in Sweden, and they would still be able to refer back to the witnesses for a response to his interview.

 

[Here_to_learn]

They did rule against it, in deference to the Swedish Legal System, which, according to your explanation, gives the prosecutor the discretion to have the interview locally or overseas. That is, why not remove one of Assange's complaints and have the interview in GB, if it is in her power to do so? It would give him one less leg to stand on. He would still wind up in Sweden, and they would still be able to refer back to the witnesses for a response to his interview.

Oh, come on. Why do you ignore half of what's talked about all the time?

It's in her power, but she has explained that it would not be suitable to do it this way, partly since there might be additional needs in relationship to the interview, partly since she expects to charge him. English courts accepted this argument, and ruled against JA. You can't just keep saying "but" - you need a solid legal argument to take this forward.

Finally, regarding "one less leg", here's a list I just wrote out, from memory. I have not gone back through the thread to look up all pretexts, this this is far from a complete list:



Pretexts used so far by JA and/or supporters

Pretext: Hasn’t been allowed to read full investigation file
Answer: Will be allowed if/when charged.

Pretext: EAW not issued by judicial authority
Answer: English courts found that it was

Pretext: EAW did not meet dual criminality
Answer: English courts found that it does

Pretext: JA was not “accused”
Answer: English courts found that he is

Pretext: EAW instead of video interview was not proportionate
Answer. English courts found that it was

Pretext: Easier to extradite from Sweden compared to UK
Answer: Not according to European, Swedish and UK law

Pretext: JA risks death penalty in US if extradited from Sweden
Answer: Sweden may not legally extradite to US if he risks death penalty

Pretext: JA may be extradited to US for espionage charges
Answer: Sweden may not legally extradite to US if JA is charged for a political crime

Pretext: Sweden has not promised not to extradite
Answer: Sweden cannot legally promise

Pretext: Swedish courts are corrupted by politicians
Answer: Sweden 3rd least influenced country according to Transparency International

Pretext: JA will not get bail in Sweden
Answer: Correct, Sweden uses “häktning” to ensure that non-swedes does not leave the country

Pretext: Trial in Sweden will be secret
Answer: Privacy, not Secrecy, to protect involved people.

Pretext: Sweden has handed people over to CIA
Answer: Yes, documented once (2001). Not extradition. Wikileaks broke story that Sweden has since refused.

Pretext: Prosecutor is over-zealous
Answer: Case has been appealed by JA and two courts have review it

Pretext: It’s not rape
Answer: That’s for courts to settle, but if allegations are true, it’s rape in Sweden (and would be in England)

Pretext: Case was dropped
Answer: Yes, and reopened on appeal, later confirmed by two courts

Pretext: Appeal was done by layer, not by the two women
Answer: Yes, by the legal counsel for the two women, on their behalf

 

[uke2se]

This

Then read what we said again. We explained this to you.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, come on. Why do you ignore half of what's talked about all the time?

It's in her power, but she has explained that it would not be suitable to do it this way, partly since there might be additional needs in relationship to the interview, partly since she expects to charge him. English courts accepted this argument, and ruled against JA. You can't just keep saying "but" - you need a solid legal argument to take this forward.
[/URL]

I'm trying to follow a train of thought, I'm not Swedish, so I don't understand your legal system, and I'm not a lawyer.

 

[uke2se]

I'm trying to follow a train of thought, I'm not Swedish, so I don't understand your legal system, and I'm not a lawyer.

The train of thought and what is happening (as far as I can tell - I'm not a lawyer either) is this:

- If Assange was wanted for just an interview, that could technically be conducted abroad from Sweden. It's up to the prosecutor.

- Since Assange is not just wanted for an interview, but an interview with "option" to charge (that is, after the interview is concluded, according to procedure, charges would be made in this stage of the investigation), and charges can only be made to a person in Sweden, Assange needs to go to Sweden for the interview. This is what the courts in Sweden and the UK found.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I'm trying to follow a train of thought, I'm not Swedish, so I don't understand your legal system, and I'm not a lawyer.

Well, I'm not a lawyer either, nor can I promise that I do understand the Swedish legal system. However, most of the links I give out, as well as most of the quotes are in English, and aim to explain the law to non-lawyers like us.

However, among the things I've learned from being active in this thread is that things seldom are simple. It's very easy to think "but why not X", or "I'm sure that can't be true", but I've found that trying by reading up on it, as well as trying to take the thought further along, I can often find the error in reasoning.

That's why I'm urging you to read not just a couple of words from what I (or the others in the tread, or the judges in linked documents) have written, but to try to read all the sentences as a whole.

Case in point - I tried to outline my understand of the problems of interviewing in the UK, split into several numbered sentences. You chose to pick only half of a sentence from one of the points to reply to ignoring the rest of the post.

Things taken in isolation looks simple, reality seldom is.

 

[tsig]

I'm trying to follow a train of thought, I'm not Swedish, so I don't understand your legal system, and I'm not a lawyer.

Looks to me like you're trying to derail the train.

 

[a_unique_person]

Looks to me like you're trying to derail the train.

Enjoy that comment?

 

[theprestige]

I'm trying to follow a train of thought, I'm not Swedish, so I don't understand your legal system, and I'm not a lawyer.

The Swedish prosecutor has also made the point--and the UK courts agreed--that the charging process may require more than one interview, as well as other follow-up work. It's untenable for the prosecutor to have to travel repeatedly between the UK and Sweden, while finalizing this phase of the case. At this stage it is both reasonable and lawful to require that Assange be extradited to Sweden, to be interviewed at the prosecutor's convenience, prior to charges being made against him.

Remaining in the UK while the prosecutor tries to do her job is not a convenience Assange is entitled to, nor is it an accommodation that the prosecutor is interested in providing. Assange is essentially using a conspiracy theory to obstruct justice, and you're buying into it, even though the nature of the alleged conspiracy is obviously ridiculous and counter-productive on its face.

 

[WildCat]

He was in Sweden when he alledgedly raped and molested the women, hence that is where the victim, the courts, the police/prosecution, the jurisdiction, and the investigation is and should be.

If he worried so much about the US-influence on the corrupted nazi-Swedes, he shouldn't have gone there in the first place. Oh, that's right, he *didn't* worry. He even applied for a permanent stay. Strange that..

So thats's it. Stop whining.

Well, you see, he didn't know that Sweden was corrupt and at the beck and call of the US until he was investigated for rape. Pure coincidence, of course.

 

[Noztradamus]

Except Ecuador. They are impeccable.

Not sure Emilio Palacio, Ecuadorean columist who got in trouble after calling El Presidente 'The Dictator', would agree.

But he's OK now

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/31/us-grants-asylum-ecuadorean-journalist

Let's see: asylum in Miami vs the same in a couple of rooms in a London apt.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Anyone who believes that this massive diplomatic impasse is all about Julian Assange being a rapist is a first class fool.

I'm sorry, but you simply do not threaten to storm an embassy to get hold of a person who is wanted for questioning about two very minor and obscure Swedish sex offences which aren't even offences in most countries. Even that on its own makes no sense at all, but when you also consider that...

(a) the evidence to support these obscure offences is flimsy at best and ridiculous at worst

and

(b) the US is very, very, very keen to get hold of Mr Assange

...then the only rational conclusion one can reach is that the US is trying everything in its power to get hold of Assange, and it is pulling strings in the British and Swedish political and judicial systems in order to do so.

Everything else being said about this topic is something warm and wet that comes out of the rear end of a cow.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm afraid I haven't looked through 60 pages to find out whether this has already been posted, but it is the most objective documentary I have seen yet on the Assange case (Australian production.)

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110378/Sex_Lies_and_Julian_Assange_Full_Documentary_2012/

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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

An army of strawmen? Funny, that. I've been encountering the same rhetoric on other boards. Apparently, being concerned for the welfare of a whistleblower who published damning evidence of serious US war crimes equates to "worshipping Julian Assange" and condoning rape.

 

[theprestige]

Anyone who believes that this massive diplomatic impasse is all about Julian Assange being a rapist is a first class fool.

I'm afraid I haven't looked through 60 pages...

Haha oh wow.














Okay, seriously: If the US really wanted Assange, all they'd have to do is present trump up espionage charges and request extradition on that basis. Anybody who believes that US interests would be better served by getting involved in a Swedish rape investigation is a fool.

Which you would know if you'd actually bothered to read the last six pages of the thread (let alone the last sixty), where all your naive and uninformed objections are addressed and debunked several times over.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Can we take a step back? It has not been established yet that these two people are victims - at least not victims of rape by Julian Assange. At the moment, all we have are allegations of rape.

We don't even have that much, if you take a closer look. What we have are allegations that Assange "woke somebody up by having sex with them" when he'd already had consensual sex with them the night before. This person then took him to a party the next night, and recommended her friend have sex with him. How many rape victims take the rape suspect to a party the next evening?

The proper place to establish the truth or otherwise of these allegations is in a Swedish court of law, not on randi.org.

Not when the person being accused of these "offences" is also wanted in the US for publishing leaked material, and is likely to face a kangaroo court and waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay if they ever manage to get him to Swedish, and then US custody.

My personal opinion is that Mr Assange's actions since the allegations came to light are those of a man who thinks he will get convicted.

And my opinion is that you are being disingenuous. You don't believe that at all. You actually think Assange should be punished for his crimes against America, and you know that peddling this propaganda is the best way to achieve this end. You couldn't care less about the "rape" charges.

He fled Sweden and now he has jumped bail. These do not seem to be the actions of a man who is confident that his innocence will be demonstrated.

They are the actions of a man who knows perfectly well that the system is being rigged in order to get him into US custody.

However, my opinion is not important, due process is, even though there is only one man trying to obstruct it at the moment - well, one man and Ecuador.

And the whole of the free-thinking, civilised world.

By the way, I do think it is a gross slander to suggest that these two women are shills of the US or that Swedish justice can be corrupted by the US.

Oh, what a terrible thought!!!

Apart from the fact that the Swedish justice system is one of the least corrupt there is, instead of trying to fake a rape case, the US could simply have asked for Assange to be extradited.

Actually, Sweden's justice system is being examined like never before, and it is being found wanting.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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:



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 not probably completely innocuous. It is quite obviously as dodgy as hell.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

double post

 

[eirik]

Maybe you should read the thread if you are so concerned with this subject. Or the ten last pages or so. Your arguments have been dealt with dozens of times, and found completely absurd. The only ones supporting these conspiracy theories here seems to be extreme leftist JihadJane, who have lied several times in this thread, Sassy something, and Unique Person here. I don't believe the latter two are liars, but they certainly don't absorbe information very quickly.