Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

Hmmm. So on the Swedish side we have a prosecutor who has fallen prone to some sort of professional/nationalistic ego trip, and on the British side we have a massive diplomatic impasse. And nobody has thought to have a quiet word with this woman?

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.

No, but there is a massive diplomatic incident which could be solved if she were willing to do so. Except of course the diplomatic incident isn't about rape allegations, but getting Assange into US custody. That is why the Ecuadorians have given him asylum.

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?

JA is unlikely to give himself up without an assurance from Sweden that he will not be extradited to the US. The rape allegations are irrelevant.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No, why should they?

It would end a massive diplomatic impasse.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

"They" are the US authorities, collectively. From outside the US it makes no difference how the decision is made, just that it is authoritative.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Since WikiLeaks began making public large caches of classified United States government documents this year, Justice Department officials have been struggling to come up with a way to charge Mr. Assange with a crime. Among other things, they have studied several statutes that criminalize the dissemination of restricted information under certain circumstances, including the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html

Thankyou, Capt. Sassy, for illuminating this case a little more. This will be reposted elsewhere.

 

[eirik]

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.

Maybe you should concern yourself more with rape victims than leftist rock stars under a legal police investigation for rape.

You know, rape rape, as in rape. The The non-liberal non-consenting illegal kind with, you know, victims.

 

[eirik]

Hmmm. So on the Swedish side we have a prosecutor who has fallen prone to some sort of professional/nationalistic ego trip, and on the British side we have a massive diplomatic impasse. And nobody has thought to have a quiet word with this woman?

Slap some sense in to her, let the female prosecutor know her place? Bet you would like that.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But from what understand he's a press secretary - why would anything he says be legally binding for the US? How could anybody but the supreme court issue a verdict that is legally binding and cannot be overruled?

Also, why would "intervene" mean "promise not to extradite"?

Yes, they may very well be looking into if what he has done is illegal, and so far they may have come to two conclusions:
1. They haven't found any US laws that JA has broken, so they haven't issued an indictment.
2. They have found something to indict him for, but for some reason has decided not to tell anyone about it.

I agree with your either/or. If it is (2) then the "some reason" is that it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden than from the UK.

But neither of these two situations would enable anyone to promise not to request an extradition. In situation 2 they are probably planning to extradite at some future time, and in situation 1 there is nothing that says that they might not find something tomorrow, or the day after. So again they cannot promise anything.

Then Assange should stay where he is, unless he wants to end up in Guantanamo Bay.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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

From what I've read so far, it is not AUP who is having trouble understanding what is really going on, both in the Assange case and in this thread.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

this:

It's not just about interviewing.

Oh no, it's also about delivering Assange into US custody.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

Hit nail on head.

If Sweden really wanted to make progress on the sex crime allegations, this would be a way to do so. So what possible reason could they have not to do so? Well, it could be nationalistic pride. And it could be that the US is desperate to get hold of Assange and the real agenda is to get Assange to Sweden, from where he is more easily extracted than from the UK.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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

Looks to me like he's one of the minority in this thread who knows where the rails actually are.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Haha oh wow.

Okay, seriously: If the US really wanted Assange

The US really wants Assange.

, all they'd have to do is present trump up espionage charges and request extradition on that basis.

If they did that then there would be another legal procedure in the UK, involving questions being asked about whether Assange would get a fair trial, or potentially face the death penalty, in the US. The US does not want that can of worms to be opened.

 

[theprestige]

It would end a massive diplomatic impasse.

Why should the US care about a diplomatic impasse between the UK, Sweden, and Ecuador, over a rape case that has nothing to do with the US?

Why would the US want to prejudice their own extradition options regarding their Wikileaks investigation, just to resolve somebody else's unrelated impasse?

 

[theprestige]

If they did that then there would be another legal procedure in the UK, involving questions being asked about whether Assange would get a fair trial, or potentially face the death penalty, in the US. The US does not want that can of worms to be opened.

That can of worms will have to be opened regardless, if the US wants Assange. Extraditing him to Sweden on rape charges doesn't actually get any closer to extraditing him to the US on espionage charges.

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

By you, maybe.

The only ones supporting these conspiracy theories here seems to be extreme leftist JihadJane,

Nearly all Americans think the whole of European politics is "extreme leftist." Nearly all Europeans think the whole of US politics is absurdly right wing.

I have found in recent days that almost everybody who is defending the anti-Assange propaganda is right wing, and believe Assange should be punished for publishing the leaked material that damaged US reputation.

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.

I have not encounterd Sassy before, but I know AUP and consider him to be amongst the sharpest members of this forum.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Maybe you should concern yourself more with rape victims..

The biggest enemies of real rape victims, apart from real rapists, are people who debase the term "rape" or use allegations of rape in order to pursue personal or political vendettas.

You know, rape rape, as in rape.

According to the definition of rape used in this particular case, I AM A RAPIST.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why should the US care about a diplomatic impasse between the UK, Sweden, and Ecuador, over a rape case that has nothing to do with the US?

Because the person who is accused of "rape" just happens to be the journalist who published some very damaging leaked material, and threatens to publish more?

Ah...but that would mean that it is not in their interest to declare their interest.

Why would the US want to prejudice their own extradition options regarding their Wikileaks investigation, just to resolve somebody else's unrelated impasse?

It's not unrelated.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That can of worms will have to be opened regardless, if the US wants Assange. Extraditing him to Sweden on rape charges doesn't actually get any closer to extraditing him to the US on espionage charges.

It would be much easier to extradite him from Sweden, for reasons already explained in the recent pages of this thread.

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

The lurkers can decide that for themselves.

 

[uke2se]

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.

You really ought to read back a few pages. You are basically 100% wrong on all counts.

 

[uke2se]

According to the definition of rape used in this particular case, I AM A RAPIST.

I really don't believe that, but if true, you should report yourself. The allegations have been shown to constitute rape in both Sweden and the UK.

Now, do you have any new arguments, or do you plan on just rehashing all the ones we've been through already?