Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Here_to_learn]

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

Well, from JAs perspective it certainly does matter. So I ask again - according to US constitution and law, who can make a legally binding promise not to indict/charge, and thereby not to request extradition from a person.

Since you are so sure about this, it should be a simple question to answer.

 

[Here_to_learn]

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.

And since the law shows that in fact it's harder from Sweden than from the UK, what is your conclusion?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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?

OK, I see where this is going. If these are the allegations, then they will come down to one person's word against another person's word. No evidence is possible to prove what happened, and the case should be dropped.

If you're going to accuse somebody of rape, you require some sort of evidence. In this case, we know for a fact that the woman in question took the "rapist" in question to a party the next evening, and recommended her friend to have sex with him. Now we are supposed to believe the same person when she makes an allegation of rape?? If we are fools, we will believe her.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I

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.

You don't know me, eirik. Firstly, I'm not a "leftist." I'm actually a radical green. And secondly I'm not a liar. I'm actually known for honestly expressing views that other people would expect me to keep quiet about, or lie about. That includes a profound distrust and dislike of almost everything that comes out of the United States of America. I'm not a marxist, but I am very much anti-American. It is therefore not a surprise that I support Assange for political reasons. I am not hiding this.

Back on topic, I will re-iterate my point: nearly everybody I have encountered peddling anti-Assange propaganda in recent days is a right-winger who hates Assange and wants to see him in US custody. They will claim that their opinions are being driven by their dislike of rapists, when in reality they just want to see Assange silenced, and punished for what he has already done.

There are also two other, smaller groups of people supporting the propaganda. One lot are Swedes who are indignant about what is being said about the Swedish justice system. The other lot are radical feminists who are using this case to highlight their general beliefs about men and attitudes to rape (they are upset about people like George Galloway dismissing the rape allegations as ridiculous, regardless of the fact that in this particular case they really are ridiculous. This is just wrong-headed. You do not help genuine rape victims by taking politically-motivated rape allegations seriously.)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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 also

(a) impossible to prove, because it is one person's word against another's.

and

(b) inconsistent with the woman in question's behaviour afterwards. If she thought she had been raped, why did she tell her friend to have sex with the rapist? Why did she take him to a party the next evening?

You do not get to change your mind about rape. If you didn't think you were raped the day after, you can't then decide it was rape a few days/weeks later. If you could, then anyone having sex with anyone else would be at risk of them deciding at a later date to make an accusation of rape. I'm sorry, but in the real world things do not work like this.

It's really very simple.

Yes, it is. These "rape" allegations are a joke, and the real explanation for what is going on is that the US is desperate to get hold of Julian Assange.

This has nothing to do with rape. It's about US power and the desire to punish Assange, and silence him.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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

It is acting in that way in this case, yes. Sadly.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, from JAs perspective it certainly does matter. So I ask again - according to US constitution and law, who can make a legally binding promise not to indict/charge, and thereby not to request extradition from a person.

Since you are so sure about this, it should be a simple question to answer.

If no assurance can be given, then Assange has every right to fear for his liberty and freedom. You are saying it is impossible to give this assurance. I am saying that if that is the case, then Ecuador was justified in granting him asylum. If there can be no guarantee he won't be handed over in turn to the Americans, then he should not be handed over to the Swedes.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And since the law shows that in fact it's harder from Sweden than from the UK, what is your conclusion?

My belief is that what you're claiming doesn't fit with the facts. If it wasn't easier to get hold of him from Sweden then the US would not currently be pulling all the strings it can pull in order to get him to Sweden.

The sex charges are clearly trumped up.

The US wants to get hold of Assange, badly.

The Swedes refuse to come to London to question him.

I can only conclude that they aren't actually all that interested in questioning him, but want to get him to Sweden instead, because they have found a way to get him out of Sweden more easily than they can get him out of the UK.

The Ecuadorians have come to precisely the same conclusion, which is why they have granted him asylum. I know you don't like this, but I'm afraid you have no choice but to accept it. The US has told the UK to get hold of Assange any way they can, but even their British lapdog/henchman couldn't get away with storming an embassy to do it.

The result is a political/diplomatic impasse, and the longer it goes on, the more of a problem it becomes for the US and UK governments. And in order to get out of the impasse, and get their man, there is currently a propaganda campaign the like of which I've never seen before. An attempt is in progress to brainwash the public throughout the western world that Julian Assange is a sex criminal, and that this attempt to get him to Sweden has nothing whatsoever with the Americans being desperate to get their hands on him. This propaganda campaign is being fought in the mainstream media (including, sadly, the usually-reliable BBC) and also online by "astroturfers".

 

[Wudang]

And again

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

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's also

(a) impossible to prove, because it is one person's word against another's.

and

(b) inconsistent with the woman in question's behaviour afterwards. If she thought she had been raped, why did she tell her friend to have sex with the rapist? Why did she take him to a party the next evening?

a) You have just stated that rape is fine as long as no one else sees it and can counter your claims that it wasn't rape. It seems to be your opinion that as long as it's only the victim's word on what happened, rapists can do whatever they want and get off scot free.

b) I don't know where to start correcting you, but I'll point out that at the very least you have the two confused for a start. Honestly, until you actually know what the case is about, you really should stop commenting and making yourself look foolish. A good place to start would be the agreed upon facts that was part of the extradition case.

You do not get to change your mind about rape. If you didn't think you were raped the day after, you can't then decide it was rape a few days/weeks later. If you could, then anyone having sex with anyone else would be at risk of them deciding at a later date to make an accusation of rape. I'm sorry, but in the real world things do not work like this.

It has nothing to do with changing one's mind. Rape doesn't stop being rape just because the victim didn't realise that they were raped any more than an attempted murder isn't an attempted murder beacuse the shooter missed that the intended victim never knew they'd been shot at. If a week later the person describes what happened and is told that it was rape, it doesn't magically start being rape then, it always was. Besides, in this case the victims didn't "change their minds." The victims described what happened to the police and the police realised that the actions described were likely to be consider rape under the law and so acted on it, which is exactly what they should do under their duty to prosecute.

Yes, it is. These "rape" allegations are a joke, and the real explanation for what is going on is that the US is desperate to get hold of Julian Assange.

No the allegations are not a joke, and quite frankly anyone that seriously thinks that non-consentual sex is alright and a joke is a pretty much... I'll stop there to avoid crossing the MA.

This has nothing to do with rape. It's about US power and the desire to punish Assange, and silence him.

Yup, and NASA filmed the Apollo landings in a film studio, The CIA had Kennedy killed, and 9/11 was an inside job too.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

a) You have just stated that rape is fine as long as no one else sees it and can counter your claims that it wasn't rape.

I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that in some (many) cases, it come down to one person's word against another. That is not condoning rape. It is admitting that sometimes there is insufficient evidence for a third party to come to a valid conclusion about what actually happened.

It seems to be your opinion that as long as it's only the victim's word on what happened, rapists can do whatever they want and get off scot free.

I'm saying that if it is only the victim's word then we are in very dangerous territory indeed, because it leaves the door wide open for malicious, fallacious rape allegations. It is an open invitation for women to use accusations of rape in order to pursue a personal vendetta against someone. It does not follow that every time it comes down to one person's word against another, that it wasn't rape. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. All I'm saying is that you can't convict somebody for a serious offence like this when all you've got is the word of a victim who may actually be making malicious, false allegations.

It has nothing to do with changing one's mind. Rape doesn't stop being rape just because the victim didn't realise that they were raped...

Oh yes it does. If somebody has just had sex with somebody, and did not believe it was rape, then they cannot change their mind and decide it was rape several days later.

If you are being raped, then you know you are being raped. If somebody wakes you up by having sex with you then you must decide at the point you wake up whether or not this action is acceptable. You can't decide it was rape several days later.

Yup, and NASA filmed the Apollo landings in a film studio, The CIA had Kennedy killed, and 9/11 was an inside job too.

...and Julian Assange is a rapist.

Your propaganda does not fool me. You can try as hard as you like to present me as a conspiracy-theorist nutjob. The truth is that this is a real conspiracy to get Assange into US custody.

Some conspiracy theories turn out to be real. This is one of them. Another one is the fact that the US government is rigging the precious metals markets, just as it condoned the rigging of LIBOR.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And again

Yes, it's powerful propaganda, is it not?

I'm sorry, but for all the propaganda in the world, YOU DO NOT THREATEN TO STORM AN EMBASSY IN ORDER TO GET HOLD OF A PERSON WHO IS WANTED FOR QUESTIONING ABOUT HAVING CONSENSUAL SEX WITHOUT ASKING TO USE A CONDOM FIRST, OR WAKING SOMEBODY UP BY HAVING SEX WITH THEM WHEN YOU ALREADY HAD CONSENSUAL SEX WITH THEM THE PREVIOUS NIGHT.

BUT...you may well threaten to storm an embassy to get hold of a person who has published the most damaging leaked material in US history.

I'm sorry, but when there's this much smoke, then there has to be a fire.

 

[Moss]

Your propaganda does not fool me. You can try as hard as you like to present me as a conspiracy-theorist nutjob. The truth is that this is a real conspiracy to get Assange into US custody.

Some conspiracy theories turn out to be real. This is one of them.

Given the nature of the accusations against him I'd think not. I'd expect more direct evidence and a story that is obvious rape, not something that may or may not be as possibly ambiguous as this one. There isn't much evidence of planning or forethought which I'd expect in an uncovered conspiracy.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The US has been hoist by its own petard. It wants to have its cake and eat it.

Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding and the treatment of Private Manning are all examples of the US demonstrating to the rest of the world that it is above the law. They are powerful statements to the effect: "We can do whatever we like. Do not mess with the United States, or this is what will happen to you." But at the same time, they also want to be able to get hold of people like Julian Assange via legitimate legal mechanisms and that means questions will be asked about what is likely to happen to Assange should he ever end up in US custody.

The US can't have it both ways. If it wants to be treated like a law-abiding nation then it can't also incarcerate and torture people indefinately, without trial.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Given the nature of the accusations against him I'd think not. I'd expect more direct evidence and a story that is obvious rape, not something that may or may not be as possibly ambiguous as this one. There isn't much evidence of planning or forethought which I'd expect in an uncovered conspiracy.

That just indicates to me that the Americans were/are really desperate to get hold of Assange quickly. That's why mistakes were made on the handling of the situation. They wanted him out of that embassy BEFORE it blew up into a major diplomatic incident. They told the UK to pull out all the stops, but this led to tactical mistakes.

 

[Here_to_learn]

My belief is that what you're claiming doesn't fit with the facts. If it wasn't easier to get hold of him from Sweden then the US would not currently be pulling all the strings it can pull in order to get him to Sweden.

Well, It's not me claiming it, it's the law. You can read the analysis of it yourself from the link I gave you. It's not enough just to throw around your "beliefs", you need to argue the law.

The law says that it is not easier to extradite from Sweden compared to the UK. Unless you can show that the analysis of the law done in the article I linked to is wrong, there is either something wrong with your conclusion, or what you think are facts are actually errors in understanding.

The sex charges are clearly trumped up.

Are you a witness?

The US wants to get hold of Assange, badly.

Ah, but from the documents that has been quoted so far, they have not found a way to charge him with anything.

The Swedes refuse to come to London to question him.

I can only conclude that they aren't actually all that interested in questioning him, but want to get him to Sweden instead, because they have found a way to get him out of Sweden more easily than they can get him out of the UK.

You are entirely correct that the Swedish legal system doesn't want to go to the UK, and that they instead want JA to come to Sweden.

But then you get to the reason... You have two options here:

1. Sweden is telling the truth. This is according to the law.
2. There is some magic law around that no one knows about.

Unless you can point to that law, number 2 above is just fantasy.

The Ecuadorians have come to precisely the same conclusion, which is why they have granted him asylum. I know you don't like this, but I'm afraid you have no choice but to accept it. The US has told the UK to get hold of Assange any way they can, but even their British lapdog/henchman couldn't get away with storming an embassy to do it.

The result is a political/diplomatic impasse, and the longer it goes on, the more of a problem it becomes for the US and UK governments. And in order to get out of the impasse, and get their man, there is currently a propaganda campaign the like of which I've never seen before. An attempt is in progress to brainwash the public throughout the western world that Julian Assange is a sex criminal, and that this attempt to get him to Sweden has nothing whatsoever with the Americans being desperate to get their hands on him. This propaganda campaign is being fought in the mainstream media (including, sadly, the usually-reliable BBC) and also online by "astroturfers".

Let's see here:

1. The is a conspiracy going on that will break the law
2. The proof of the conspiracy is that there is no proof
3. The public is being brainwashed through mainstream media that is under control from the government
4. The people that argue against the conspiracy are government shills
5. Since everybody that argues against the conspiracy are shills, there are no needs to argue against facts, opinion trumps facts at every stage


There has been times when I felt that this thread belonged in politics rather than here in Current Events. I realize now that I was wrong and it should go to another area of the forum...

 

[PhantomWolf]

I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that in some (many) cases, it come down to one person's word against another. That is not condoning rape. It is admitting that sometimes there is insufficient evidence for a third party to come to a valid conclusion about what actually happened.

Which is why police do investigations and trials occur, isn't it?

I'm saying that if it is only the victim's word then we are in very dangerous territory indeed, because it leaves the door wide open for malicious, fallacious rape allegations. It is an open invitation for women to use accusations of rape in order to pursue a personal vendetta against someone. It does not follow that every time it comes down to one person's word against another, that it wasn't rape. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. All I'm saying is that you can't convict somebody for a serious offence like this when all you've got is the word of a victim who may actually be making malicious, false allegations.

We're not talking about being convicted, we're talking about it being investigated and a trial happening if the posecution believe they have a case. Your arguement seems to be that if it's her word against his that it shouldn't even being investigated or tried. If that's not what you are saying, then why should the Swedish Prosecution and Police investigate and try this case, especially when they currently believe they have the evidence to win a case.

Oh yes it does. If somebody has just had sex with somebody, and did not believe it was rape, then they cannot change their mind and decide it was rape several days later.

If someone has non-consentual sex with someone it doesn't stop being non-conmsentual sex because the victim didn't realise that right to say no had been violated.

If you are being raped, then you know you are being raped.

This statment is complete poppycock. A lot of people have no idea about whether they are able to give consent or what is considered a violation of their consent. For example, pressuring someone into saying yes even after they have stated no is under law, rape, yet the majority of people would not realise that, or that if they said yes because they felt they had too even though they didn't want to, that this is not actuially legal consent.

If somebody wakes you up by having sex with you then you must decide at the point you wake up whether or not this action is acceptable. You can't decide it was rape several days later

.

If someone wakes you up having sex with you withoput your consent they have commited rape against you regardless of what you think.

...and Julian Assange is a rapist.

If he did what he is accused of, yes he is.

Your propaganda does not fool me.

Perhaps you need to learn more. The only propaganda in this case is by those claiming trhe US is out to get Assange with trumped up sex charges.

You can try as hard as you like to present me as a conspiracy-theorist nutjob.

As they say, if the shoe fits...

The truth is that this is a real conspiracy to get Assange into US custody.

And yet there is still zero evidence of it.

Some conspiracy theories turn out to be real. This is one of them. Another one is the fact that the US government is rigging the precious metals markets, just as it condoned the rigging of LIBOR.

I guess if you consider fines of over $230 million and the heads of the Chairman, CEO , and Chief Operating Officer of the bank involved to have been "condoning" the actions, I guess you're right, but that's the subject for a different thread.

 

[PhantomWolf]

My belief is that what you're claiming doesn't fit with the facts. If it wasn't easier to get hold of him from Sweden then the US would not currently be pulling all the strings it can pull in order to get him to Sweden.

This is a stunning example of cirular reasoning.

We know that it is easier for the US to get him from Sweden because the US is currently pulling all the strings it can pull in order to get him to Sweden because it's easier for the US to grab him from Sweden.

 

[Sabrina]

Undercover Elephant, I HIGHLY suggest that you actually READ the thread before contributing anything. Right now, all you are presenting yourself as is a blowhard windbag screeching your utter hatred (and by the way, that makes you extremely biased) of the US based on your conclusions of facts not in evidence. There is no hard evidence the US wants Assange to be extradited to face charges here, since we have filed no extradition request and have not even presented any charges we feel we can charge him with in relation to the Wikileaks case, and in fact have concentrated our efforts against the true perpetrator of the crime, namely Bradley Manning. Assange is not nearly as important as he would like to believe.

I won't deny that the US would certainly like to see Wikileaks shut down, as would whatever other governments that have had secret documentation exposed by the website, but organizing a witch hunt does little to advance our cause. Right now, Assange is doing more to make himself irrelevant than any charges we could bring would ever do. The smart thing would be for the US to sit back and let him implode on his own, which he seems to be doing splendidly with no help from us. The more time passes with no charges appearing from the US, the more paranoid Assange gets, and the more crazy he appears with his squawking about how the US is after him. Hoist by his own petard indeed. And all we have to do is... nothing. Now you tell me; which makes more sense to you? That we frantically try to trump up something in a country that makes it more difficult to extradite than one of our other allies, or that we simply sit back and let Assange commit his own political suicide of sorts? Whatever else you may think of the government of the US, is isn't populated by utter morons. My money is on option two.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Here is an article (oh, sorry, propaganda) that goes through and fact-checks Naomi Wolf's "8 big problems".

http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/chec...lems-in-the-assange-case-and-coming-up-empty/

]Recently I noticed an article posted on Mark Crispin Miller’s blog, “News from Underground.” The article, written by Naomi Wolf, is called “Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against Assange.” I have followed the Assange case from the beginning. I’ve made discoveries of deleted tweets, poor police work and other irregularities. Because of my findings I was asked to be a witness for the defense in the extradition hearings on the 7th and 8th of February 2011. There are problems in the Assange case, but none of Naomi Wolf’s claims are actually real problems. In fact, Naomi Wolf’s so-called problems are misconceptions and fictitious conspiracy theories.

There are several interesting things in the article, for example that the two women did not go to the police to have them force an STD test on JA, but actually to file a complaint.

What we want to know is what happened at the police station. We want facts. We don’t want hearsay. To find out what happened at the police station on 20 August 2010 we have to look at the memorandum by Linda Wassgren. She states rightfully that the two women talked from very early on about the crime rape and that both women were victims. In her memorandum there is no mentioning of forcing Julian Assange to take an HIV-test.