Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[uke2se]

Just for you, Elephant, this is a post by Here_to_learn that excellently describes where in this discussion we are currently. Basically, all your failed arguments are... well... failed.

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]

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

Wow....

I really did not think I'd see such a blatant lie so quickly after you started participating in this thread.

In case you're just very very dim, please explain in your own words why it would be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK.

 

[uke2se]

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.

Guess that makes me the exception then. I'm pro-Wikileaks but don't think anyone should be above the law, including Julian Assange. You apparently think he should be.

As a Swede, I must say I am quite appalled by all the conspiracy crap made up about my country and our judicial system in particular - a judicial system that has been found to be among the least corrupted in the world. Rape-apologists like you seem to swing wildly in all directions in order to make this into some sort of international conspiracy, and it really doesn't make you look good.

This whole charade should have been nothing more than a standard extradition of a wanted alleged rapist. Assange and his sycophants have done all they can to turn this into some sort of international incident. You think it's suspicious that this thing is so overblown for something that's just a rape case? Well, take a look in the mirror. You and your ilk are the ones blowing.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I really don't believe that, but if true, you should report yourself.

I hereby declare that I have woken up at least ten women by having sex with them after previously having had consensual sex with them.

I also declare that if this is considered "rape", then the term "rape" is being dangerously debased.

 

[uke2se]

I hereby declare that I have woken up at least ten women by having sex with them after previously having had consensual sex with them.

I also declare that if this is considered "rape", then the term "rape" is being dangerously debased.

Did you have sex with them without a condom when they expressly told you to use one?

Did you hold them down when they attempted to reach for one?

 

[eirik]

By you, maybe.

I'm not the one wanting a "quiet word" with that "woman".

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.

No. Just extreme leftists, which is you, and extreme right wings, which don't give one single **** about Assange. I'm European and Norwegian. Don't mistake all Norwegians for leftists even though we have our fair share. And I don't really mind leftists. It's a stance I can respect. What I can't respect is is lying and manipulative leftists and right wings. Which is why I don't respect your argumenst here.

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.

That's because you are extreme left wing, and view anybode else as right wing. Classic cult behaviour.

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

I don't care, because he is wrong, and his arguments don't fly. He's clearly biased.

 

[eirik]

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

End thread.

 

[BenBurch]

What will end this thread is one of;

1. He is arrested and hauled to Sweden and tried for rape.
2. He dies in a stupid escape attempt.
3. He dies by his own hand in that tiny room.
4. He dies of old age in the embassy.
5. Ecuador has a change of leadership and they kick him to the curb, followed by #1, above.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Did you have sex with them without a condom when they expressly told you to use one?

Did you hold them down when they attempted to reach for one?

I would also add to that:

Did any of those ten times occur when you had only had a one night stand and had no idea if such sexual activity was wanted by the woman?

If the answer to any of these is yes, then congratulations, you are indeed a rapist, though I would suggest not something to be proud of.

The allegation against Assange is that since he had been told prior that there was ro be no sex without a condom that by starting to have sex with her without one while she was (half) asleep, that he deliberately started sexual intercourse that he knew was non-concentual with a woman who was was not in a position to be able to consent to that activity. Under the laws of virtually every western country, that is non-consentual sex, which is rape.

It's really very simple. She told him no sex without a condom, he didn't want to use one and so waited until he knew she wasn't in a position to object and took advantage of her state. If the allegation is true, and really there is zero reason to not believe that it is, it was rape. In fact this is the sort of rape that is the most common type. Rape is not about some stranger climbing in your window, or grabbing you and dragging you into a bush at knife point. The majority of rapes are commited by people that are friends or even lovers, who simply will not take "no" for an answer and do what they want regardless, excatly what Assange is alleged to have done.

The truely sad thing is that so many people have been brainwashed into believing that it's fine for a lover to do it, that most victims don't realise what it was, they often just feel bad, and think that it was their own fault, and most perpetrators think that there is nothing at all wrong with what they did, at worst it was just bad manners.

 

[trustbutverify]

Did you have sex with them without a condom when they expressly told you to use one?

Did you hold them down when they attempted to reach for one?

UE?

 

[theprestige]

What will end this thread is one of;

1. He is arrested and hauled to Sweden and tried for rape.
2. He dies in a stupid escape attempt.
3. He dies by his own hand in that tiny room.
4. He dies of old age in the embassy.
5. Ecuador has a change of leadership and they kick him to the curb, followed by #1, above.

I'm going to laugh long and hard if, after all this is over, the US indicts him for his Wikileaks-related activities, requests his extradition, and after thorough review by his current host nation where it is found to be entirely legitimate, the request is promptly fulfilled.

 

[tsig]

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 almost had me but you went one very too far.

 

[tsig]

Enjoy that comment?

Immensely.

 

[tsig]

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.

So the Swedish government is just a puppet for the US?

 

[tsig]

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

The train runs straight thru "hate US" country and stops at the paranoia station?

 

[tsig]

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/

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


The lurkers can decide that for themselves.

You didn't read them but you know they support your opinion?

 

[eirik]

You didn't read them but you know they support your opinion?

Yeah, it's pretty much a religious belief by now.

 

[a_unique_person]

Immensely.

Nice to know you enjoy harassing people so much. Have a good day.

 

[BenBurch]

I'm going to laugh long and hard if, after all this is over, the US indicts him for his Wikileaks-related activities, requests his extradition, and after thorough review by his current host nation where it is found to be entirely legitimate, the request is promptly fulfilled.

Yeah, except I am sure the geopolitical calculus says not to do that.

He has been neutralized very effectively by his own actions.

And they would still have to find something with a colorable chance of being a chargeable crime.

 

[Here_to_learn]

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?

A politician maybe? You know - the whole point with having an independent judicial system is that it is not affected by outside pressure. And here you are, specifically asking for that. The legal system does not care about any diplomatic impasses, if it did, it would be worse off.

No, but there is a massive diplomatic incident which could be solved if she were willing to do so.

But as has been described several times, just on the last pages of this thread - it wouldn't. Sweden wants JA to conduct criminal proceedings, not just to interview.

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.

Correct, Ecuador got involved since it believes that JA will be extradited to the US. That they are wrong in many aspects are just inconvenient facts.

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

And as has been shown, that can most certainly not happen.