Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[JihadJane]

So just for fun, let's see what Jan Guillou thinks about JA...



Google translate/My fixes:
Of course there was a risk that the CIA or any other federal group, who justly might have hated Julian Assange and his associates, began to think about underhand methods to get at him. But before they got going, they discovered, probably to their surprise, that they didn't have to lift a finger before Julian Assange started conspiring against himself, so that he finally seemed to be both clearly a suspected rapist and also stark raving mad. All the time and money he spent on lawyers, rumors and conspiracies paralyzed WikiLeaks. And his many enemies then only risk to laugh themselves to death at the man who struggled under the gallows he himself crafted.

Hohoho.

 

[Kaosium]

I'd agree that it is, but only because most people wouldn't have let it get to one court before dealing with it properly, Assange has done everything in his power to drag this out as long as possible.

Every single one of those five court hearings could have been avoided by Assange, every single one of them was forced on Sweden.

#1 - The original hearing for approval of a EAW. Has Assange not fled the country (sorry, left without getting in touch with his lawyer who was told three times that Assange was wanted for interrogation and claimed he was not able to pass on the message, after being caught out claiming he never got them. Tui's ad anyone?) this one would never have had to occur. It also would have likely stopped the whole thing in its tracks.

#2 - Assange tells his lawyers to appeal the decision granting the EAW. Again, this one is totally on Assange. He didn't have to appeal the decision.

#3 - Extradition Case before the Chief Justice. Assange could have avoided this one by simply returning to Sweden. He chose instead to fight and so this court hearing became necessary.

#4 - British Court of Appeal. Again, this was Assange's doing. He demanded that his Lawyers appealed the decision that went against him in the first extradition case. Had he accepted the verdict and returned to Sweden, this hearing never would have happened.

#5 - British Supreme Court. Once again, Assange was behind the need for this hearing. He once more told his lawyers to appeal the decision.

So yes it is unusal that it has gone through five courts, but the unusual bit is not that it has done so, but that Assange has lost, and lost dramatically at every stage, with his lawyers even having been censured for lying to the courts, and yet he keeps trying to fight it not on the merits but based on Conspriacy Theories.

Well...he did piss off the sort of people who conspire, thus they might not be theories...

However aren't most of those are for extradition in the UK? The way those EAWs work, as I found out during AK training, p) is they pretty much give wide latitude to the extradition requesting nation. One Italian convicted in absentia on double hearsay 'evidence' could not prevent being sent to Italy to serve a murder sentence.

It's not at all about "post-hoc semantics". One woman claimed that he held her down, prevented her from reaching for a condom, and attempted to enter her against her will by pushing her legs apart as she resisted.

The second woman claims that dispite being clearly told the previous evening that she would not have sex with him without a condom, he did so anyway while she was not fully awake (there is some dispute to if she was dozing or asleeep at the time).

These aren't just plays on semantics, if the claims are true, then they are very serious allegations and would be a criminal offence in any first world country.

Those strike me as 'accusations' of the consensual sex they had. It seems to me you can tell it was consensual by the way they said it was consensual and how they acted around him afterward, rather invalidating any claim of it being 'against their will'. Even if all of that is literally true, that they musta changed their minds during the course of the event, (she was in bed naked with him!) but there's no violence or threat of violence here--by their own admission. Restoring that context reveals that these are specious charges and speaks volumes about just how divorced from reality Sweden's laws are on this subject. No prosecutor should be able to get away with this. From the wiki which I post simply for convenience as there's others that say the same thing outside the wikis own sources.

At the hearing, Assange's defence raised a variety of objections, including mismatches between the EAW and the original accuser statements to the Swedish police that exaggerated the nature of the complaints. In particular they argued the original police reports showed - contrary to the EAW - absence of alleged rape; absence of alleged force or injury; admission in both cases of consensual sex on the same occasions as the allegations; and splitting of a condom used with plaintiff 1 rather than failure to use one.

The defence also highlighted evidence that: plaintiff 2 had later admitted to being "half asleep" after consensual sex, rather than "asleep"; that the plaintiffs had originally been seeking to compel Assange to take an STD test rather than prosecution; and that plaintiff 1 had thrown a Crayfish party for Assange at her home the evening after the alleged incidents, from which she tweeted: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!" and invited Assange to stay in her room afterwards.

Nor do I think Sweden's condom fetish amounts to rape. Did they get diseases or pregnant? Not that I've heard; then no harm done. Sweden can fine him or ban him from the country, but these two using it as an excuse to pretend they were raped is ridiculous. That's playing semantics with 'consent.' As is the one where she was dozing and found herself woken up and didn't object, well that's what she had to do if she objected! Otherwise how the hell is he to know? She's not a prostitute, getting paid by the go, he probably assumes he's waking her the 'very best way' as she enjoys being with him. Which she did as far as he knew!

They were supporters of both his and Wikileaks, not exact the sort of people you'd expect to try and bring him down with lies depite claims made by those who spent months digging through the victims lives for dirt to muddy them and their characters.

I didn't come across any smears, but I wasn't looking for them either. What interested me was verifying the information in the wiki and I found numerous reports of the happy and satisfied tweet, and the revenge manual,' as well.

At the end of the day it's not about the alledged victims. We don't, at least we shouldn't, decide justice on how much we like the alleged perpetrator and how little we like the alledged victim, we decide it based on the facts of the incident. Currently these are that he most likely did as claimed, unless he can show otherwise which he has continually refrained from doing despite repeated opportunities to. To the Conspriracy he continues to claim, there is no eidence at all.

I agree with everything here, whether I like Julian Assange doesn't matter in the slightest, he's still a victim. His groupies scorned are kinda cute, but they're still abusers, they'd destroyed his reputation with most, and perhaps might get him prison time. On that level I find it a gross miscarriage of justice.

However, Swedish prison might just be the best place for him, as I got to looking more around and I came across something I was unaware of, that the wikileaks might have gotten at least one tribal leader killed in Afghanistan. I was unable to confirm it in a cursory search, but if that's true, and he endangered several more as it also appears, he has worse problems than these two.

Embarrassing governments is one thing, getting people killed is another. I don't think he actually was set up in this case, I will believe that the Swedes have become that ridiculous, however there's those who are going to take that very seriously, it was not a wise decision on his part to not care if he exposed them. Not just because of us, or even the Canadian (!) that called for his head (I didn't know one could piss off a Canuck that bad!) but if he got Afghan leaders kill and exposed more to danger, then he might contemplate the fact that it's not just the Taliban who're hardcore vengeance seekers.

It's cultural.

I'm sorry if I offended you, I understand that you've perhaps invested yourself in this case, but these two aren't victims in my view at all, they're the ones perpetrating an injustice, (on these specific charges) veiled by the fact that it's a natural inclination for decent people to want to protect those who're actually abused. However, if a charge like this can be leveled and not laughed at--if not prosecuted for a false allegation--then it's gotten to the point where it's dangerous to other people's lives and freedoms.

 

[Wudang]

'Sweden Abandoning Afghans to Dreadful Fate'



[My bold - JJ]

Which is very small potatoes compared to the crap the UK government has done to support the "war on terror", so why did he flee Sweden to the UK? That's granting any relevance at all to why an alleged rapist should be allowed not to stand trial and prove his innocence, if tne case against him is so weak.

 

[Korren]

No, not that drunken accident.

*snort* "Drunken accident."

Since when did neutral countries participate in US/NATO regime change invasions?

The military operations in Libya were conducted on request of the UN security council. Sweden has a long tradition of supporting and providing military manpower for UN operations.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The USA wants to punish Assange for the embarrassment he has caused and deter others from doing the same.

Got evidence of that, or is this just your opinion stated as fact?

While I don't think we know to what extent the US will go in this case, it's no secret the US would like to put Assange on trial. More than a few high ranking politicians have said so publicly and the treatment of Bradley Manning is most certainly intended to disuade future whistleblowers.

 

[theprestige]

While I don't think we know to what extent the US will go in this case, it's no secret the US would like to put Assange on trial. More than a few high ranking politicians have said so publicly and the treatment of Bradley Manning is most certainly intended to disuade future whistleblowers.

Help me understand: Do you intend this to be on-topic for this thread about the rape investigation against Assange in Sweden?

Or do you intend this to be an off-topic sidebar into possible US action against Assange related to their investigation into Wikileaks?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Help me understand: Do you intend this to be on-topic for this thread about the rape investigation against Assange in Sweden?

Or do you intend this to be an off-topic sidebar into possible US action against Assange related to their investigation into Wikileaks?

I'm pretty sure I've posted more than enough comments for my position to be clear.

You cannot divorce the potential US persecution since it goes to motive for high ranking officials to be pursuing such a ludicrous charge, consensual sex without a condom.

 

[Korren]

You cannot divorce the potential US persecution since it goes to motive for high ranking officials to be pursuing such a ludicrous charge, consensual sex without a condom.

Non-consensual sex without a condom, rather.

 

[theprestige]

I'm pretty sure I've posted more than enough comments for my position to be clear.

You've certainly posted enough comments for your position to be incoherent and unsupported.

You cannot divorce the potential US persecution

According to conspiracy theorists, I can't divorce the potential US persecution from anything that happens anywhere to anybody.

since it goes to motive for high ranking officials to be pursuing

Which "high ranking officials" would those be? Random American politicians? Or government officials in a position of authority to establish and/or implement such a pursuit?

I saw the name of an ex-governor and erstwhile vice-presidential nominee bandied about earlier. Is that the best you can do? Or perhaps you mean the Director of the CIA? The Attorney General? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Ferris Bueller? Anyone? Anyone at all?

I eagerly await your evidence that the US Government actually intends to do anything of note to Julian Assange.

such a ludicrous charge, consensual sex without a condom.

Nonconsensual, actually, which has been amply attested to elsewhere, upheld by five different courts, and isn't that ludicrous of a charge.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Non-consensual sex without a condom, rather.

You are posting post 2708. There are pages and pages on the Net on this subject. Not everyone concludes the same thing from the available evidence. It's absurd to rehash this. It's even more absurd for you to assert facts not established.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You've certainly posted enough comments for your position to be incoherent and unsupported.

In coherent? Puhleese. As for supported/unsupported, again, you don't have a consensus saying otherwise. You have an opinion, I have an opinion. In this case, that's the end of the debate.

 

[theprestige]

You have an opinion, I have an opinion. In this case, that's the end of the debate.

/lebowski

Is that the best you can do?

 

[Korren]

You are posting post 2708. There are pages and pages on the Net on this subject. Not everyone concludes the same thing from the available evidence. It's absurd to rehash this. It's even more absurd for you to assert facts not established.

Oh come on! You just asserted that he was charged with "consensual sex with a condom" in the very post I was replying to. How's that any less rehashing?

Anyway, I'm not asserting facts not established. I'm not saying anything about what actually happened between Assange and the two women -- neither of us are in a position to make any judgements of fact on that. I was pointing out that the legal complaint which Assange is sought extradited for concerned non-consensual sex and not, like you stated, for "consensual sex without a condom."

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well...he did piss off the sort of people who conspire, thus they might not be theories...

The operative word there being might. This is a board for skeptics, mights are irrelevant, only what could be proven. The whole thing might be a fight between the shape shifting Lizards from Venus and the shape shifting amphibians from Titan too, that doesn't mean we should be considering it as a serious possibility if there is zero evidence.

However aren't most of those are for extradition in the UK?

3 of 5 yes, that really doesn't matter, 5 courts have reviewed the case, which is what I stated.

The way those EAWs work, as I found out during AK training, p) is they pretty much give wide latitude to the extradition requesting nation. One Italian convicted in absentia on double hearsay 'evidence' could not prevent being sent to Italy to serve a murder sentence.

We know why it is being used in this case, 3 courts have stated its validity in no uncertain terms. The Italian case has zero relevance to this case, and an EAW cannot be used to further extradite a person on, in fact to do so requires more work than doing it from the UK.

Those strike me as 'accusations' of the consensual sex they had.

How do you get that the sex was consensual if they specifically stated that there was to be no sex without a condom, but he went ahead anyway? Which part of "no" are you not understanding here?

It seems to me you can tell it was consensual by the way they said it was consensual

No, they stated that it started out consensual and became non-consensual when he went further than they wanted him too.

and how they acted around him afterward, rather invalidating any claim of it being 'against their will'.

Now you're running the "All rape victims have to act in the same manner" play. This was debunked 2 years ago. Not all rape victims act the same way, Some may not even understand that they were offended against or think that it was their fault that the person did what they did to them. Claiming to be able to determine is someone was raped based on their actions afterward is a fallacy.

Even if all of that is literally true, that they musta changed their minds during the course of the event, (she was in bed naked with him!)

Which they are perfectly entitled to do. Being naked in bed with someone does not mean that that person gets to have sex with you however and whenever they want. In this case both women specifically stated that there was to be no sex without a condom. Assange allegedly violated those wishes by attempting to have sex without a condom in one case and actually doing so when he knew that the woman was not fully aware of what he was doing in the second. We have a legal term for that.

but there's no violence or threat of violence here--by their own admission.

This falls into the trap that rape must be violent to be rape. One poster that is no longer on the board posted her experience where a male friend stayed the night. He came into her room, got into her bed, got on top of her and had sex with her. She just lay stunned and scared of what he'd do if she resisted. She didn't know what to do, so pretended she was asleep and let him do it. I doubt that many posters here would not call that a rape, and yet there was no violence or threat of violence involved. In fact it isn't a lot different to what Assange is alleged to have done.

Restoring that context reveals that these are specious charges and speaks volumes about just how divorced from reality Sweden's laws are on this subject. No prosecutor should be able to get away with this. From the wiki which I post simply for convenience as there's others that say the same thing outside the wikis own sources.

Except that you aren't restoring the context, you are projecting your own opinions on how people should act and behave onto others and then when they don't match your expectations you claim they can't be telling the truth.

As to the wiki sources, they exclusively quote the defence. Personally I don't trust the defence in this case because they haven't told the truth numerous times in the case. The Chief Justice even took the unusual step of stating that one of the defence lawyers had deliberately attempted to mislead the courts by lying to the defence witnesses and the court itself, actions that got him censured. When we know that the defence has lied in court and used witnesses to mislead and have been caught out doing it, why should we trust anything they claim without evidence to back it up?

Nor do I think Sweden's condom fetish amounts to rape.

This has nothing to do with "Sweden's condom fetish", it has to do with Assange being told "no sex without a condom", and then blatantly and deliberately ignoring it and violating two women's rights.

Did they get diseases or pregnant? Not that I've heard; then no harm done.

This is totally irrelevant. Whether or not they contracted a disease or got pregnant doesn't negate whether he forced unprotected sex on them against their will.

Sweden can fine him or ban him from the country, but these two using it as an excuse to pretend they were raped is ridiculous.

The evidence currently is that they aren't pretending.

That's playing semantics with 'consent.'

No it's not, what part of "no" do you not understand?

As is the one where she was dozing and found herself woken up and didn't object, well that's what she had to do if she objected! Otherwise how the hell is he to know? She's not a prostitute, getting paid by the go, he probably assumes he's waking her the 'very best way' as she enjoys being with him. Which she did as far as he knew!

How about the fact he had already been told that he was not to have sex with her without using a condom? What part of no do you not understand here? Secondly, waking someone up "the 'very best way'" might be fine in a stable relationship where the rules of the relationship have been defined and are known to each other. But this was a one night stand. Assange had no way of knowing whether she wanted to be woken up by him having sex with her or not and by doing so he forced himself on her whether or not she objected to that action after the fact. This is exactly what non-consensual sex is, where one person determines to have sex with the other without permission to do so.

I didn't come across any smears, but I wasn't looking for them either. What interested me was verifying the information in the wiki and I found numerous reports of the happy and satisfied tweet, and the revenge manual,' as well.

Try looking for claims that they were working for the CIA and other things.

I agree with everything here, whether I like Julian Assange doesn't matter in the slightest, he's still a victim.

Baloney and utter hogwash. Assange is only a victim of his own making. He could have stopped this whole charade from the word go by cooperating with the Swedish authorities. he knew the allegations against him, and as soon as it became clear that the Prosecutors were taking it seriously, he fled the country. You want to talk actions, Assange's are not the actions of an innocent man.

His groupies scorned are kinda cute, but they're still abusers, they'd destroyed his reputation with most, and perhaps might get him prison time. On that level I find it a gross miscarriage of justice.

Actually don't bother to look up the smears against them, just read your own post. "They can't have been raped because they didn't act like I think they should have so instead they are abusers out to destroy him." Disgusting.

However, Swedish prison might just be the best place for him, as I got to looking more around and I came across something I was unaware of, that the wikileaks might have gotten at least one tribal leader killed in Afghanistan. I was unable to confirm it in a cursory search, but if that's true, and he endangered several more as it also appears, he has worse problems than these two.

Really, name a laws that he has broken via Wikileaks? I'll give you some time to think on that one, you can get back to me when you figure it out.

Embarrassing governments is one thing, getting people killed is another.

Lots of things get people killed. In this case the US already has the person responsible.

I don't think he actually was set up in this case, I will believe that the Swedes have become that ridiculous

I'll repeat it again because it obviously hasn't sunk in. The actions that Assange is accused of would be considered a criminal action in any first world country, including the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US, France, Germany, and so on. This has nothing to do with the Swedes being ridiculous, it has to do with Assange not being willing to take no for an answer and so pushing his desires onto two women anyway regardless of what they wanted and told him.

I'm sorry if I offended you

You haven't offended me.

I understand that you've perhaps invested yourself in this case

I don't have anything invested in this case. Originally I thought that Assange was a prick but hadn't done anything criminal. Investigating the case and watching his actions has changed my mind on that. He has a case to answer and he is doing everything to avoid it and making up CT to do so. This is what I take offence to, that such CTs with zero evidence can be so readily swallowed by people without their thinking about it, and in doing so, they are prepared to allow an alleged rapist escape justice. Consider how you would feel if one of these women was your sister...

these two aren't victims in my view at all, they're the ones perpetrating an injustice, (on these specific charges) veiled by the fact that it's a natural inclination for decent people to want to protect those who're actually abused.

I underlined the important part here. Quite frankly I disagree with your evaluation of the situation and have explained why at length above. If you discard your preset beliefs in certain Myths and do the research you might be surprised at what you find and may even change your mind. Isn't the what we are supposed to do as Skeptics?

However, if a charge like this can be leveled and not laughed at--if not prosecuted for a false allegation--then it's gotten to the point where it's dangerous to other people's lives and freedoms.

I don't find it funny at all. Seriously. Anyone that suggests that women should not have the right to determine if they will only have sex with a condom and if that right is violated then they should just suck it up and take it is seriously disgusting and a rape apologist in my view. To suggest that they should be prosecuted for having that right violated, sorry, now that is offensive.

 

[nathan]

... a ludicrous charge, consensual sex without a condom.

sigh, zombie facts indeed ...

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/assange-and-legal-myths

... the accusations were as follows:
"1. Unlawful coercion

On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. Sexual molestation

On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. Sexual molestation

On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. Rape

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

 

[The Dark Lord]

Well said, PhantomWolf.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You are posting post 2708. There are pages and pages on the Net on this subject. Not everyone concludes the same thing from the available evidence. It's absurd to rehash this. It's even more absurd for you to assert facts not established.

The facts of what the claims are and what the complaints were have been established. They are in a document which both sides have agreed too. The actions which the complainants related, and for which Assange is wanted is for non-consentual sex. This is fully established.

What isn't established is if there is enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict for it, but that is not for people on the internet to decide, nor is it for you or I to decide. It is for a court of law to decide, and Assange is doing everything to prevent that from happening. No one should be above the law, not you, not me, and not Assange.

 

[Wudang]

Deleted : answered better and at more length

 

[Noztradamus]

That's why he's fled to Ecuador.

No, he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy for the same reason he fled Sweden, he's scared the truth will come out if he gets tried in Sweden, not that it would matter to his arden supporters, they wouldn't believe anything negative about him even if the whole thing had been on video.

"That's why he fled to Knightsbridge" doesn't carry the same air of desparation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The facts are not established because there hasn't been a trial.

I would note that a trial won't establish fact either. What a trial does is determine if there is enough evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.

The simple fact (no pun intended) of the matter is that both the prosecution and the defence have agreed that certain claims of fact have been made, and no matter how some would like to slice it, those agreed upon claims equal allegations that Assange forced non-consensual sex on one woman and attempted to do so with a second.

The reason the "consensual sex without a condom" zombie keeps rearing its ugly head because supporters of Assange know that if they admit that the things he has been accused of really equal non-consensual sex, then they are supporting the escape of an alleged rapist rather than the Matyr they so desperately want him to be.