Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Laeke]

For just a second there I though you were joking, but you're not.

I suspect it's along the lines of pointing out a single detail ("he was questioned for an hour in Sweden" & "he turned himself in after the EAW") and/or saying that Assange is totally willing to face Swedish justice if he is granted special treatment and impossible guarantees.

 

[000063]

That's unlikely. It would require JJ to make an evidence-backed assertion. Even sticking to JAQing off she seems to have put her foot in it by asking about this whole "evading swedish justice" thing.

I dunno. Maybe she'll point out imply via a loaded question that it might not really be "justice".

 

[Here_to_learn]

I think the story is that JA is not intentionally evading Swedish justice, that is just a bi-product of evading US (in)-justice, and then fall back to Laeke's comment above about impossible guarantees.

 

[BenBurch]

I think it is hilarious that he rots in a prison cell of his own making.

 

[Mycroft]

I suspect it's along the lines of pointing out a single detail ("he was questioned for an hour in Sweden" & "he turned himself in after the EAW") and/or saying that Assange is totally willing to face Swedish justice if he is granted special treatment and impossible guarantees.

And of course, he deserves special treatment because of his political ideals.

 

[Toontown]

I think it is hilarious that he rots in a prison cell of his own making.

All hackers should suffer a similar fate.

 

[theprestige]

All hackers should suffer a similar fate.

Agreed, for sufficiently small values of "hackers".

 

[PB&J]

Didn't JA make himself available on somewhat-neutral territory several times? IIRC, he invited the Swedish authorities to question him while he was staying in London. Am I missing something?

All hackers should suffer a similar fate.

Err, I'm going to assume you're referring to all those nefarious hackers..

 

[BenBurch]

Didn't JA make himself available on somewhat-neutral territory several times? IIRC, he invited the Swedish authorities to question him while he was staying in London. Am I missing something?

...

Yeah, that was unacceptable to Sweden from a legal point of view.

They have a right to haul him back there to interrogate.

Because what happens right after that interrogation is arrest.

If they interrogate him in the Ecuadoran embassy, and decide arrest is warranted, what then?

Obviously the only way that works out is if they interrogate him and decide to set him free. Then he only has charges for violation of his bail in England to deal with, and that will likely simply be a huge fine.

But if, as is very likely, they decide the next step is arrest and trial, what purpose was served by that interview? He will still be a fugitive from justice, and will still be sheltered by a third-world dictator who allows police to beat journalists...

 

[Here_to_learn]

Didn't JA make himself available on somewhat-neutral territory several times? IIRC, he invited the Swedish authorities to question him while he was staying in London.

That's correct, and the FOTL refused to contract and claimed that therefore the law did not apply to them.

 

[theprestige]

Didn't JA make himself available on somewhat-neutral territory several times? IIRC, he invited the Swedish authorities to question him while he was staying in London. Am I missing something?

IIRC, he stipulated that he would make himself available to British authorities, who would question him while the Swedish authorities observed, and naturally the Swedish authorities found this to be legally and procedurally unacceptable. But don't hold me to that: your claim, your evidence.

If you happen to find a source that describes exactly what accommodation he offered to the Swedes, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people here who are happy to discuss whether or not his offer was reasonable.

Otherwise, we only have your tentative recollection to go on, to support the idea that the Swedish authorities may turned down a reasonable accommodation from Assange.

 

[Here_to_learn]

It's summarized in the Agreed Facts document and specifically is covered by the English High Court Judgement, paragraphs 155-160.

 

[eirik]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.

Anyone know what this means? Is it really a legal category, and what is the implications? Or is it just appeal to emotions and unfounded extrapolations?

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

Anyone know what this means? Is it really a legal category, and what is the implications? Or is it just appeal to emotions and unfounded extrapolations?

According to the link it means

Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...my-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html#ixzz27exDzZ2I

Which does sound like grounds for Assange to be paranoid about the US.

* I make no claim about his guilt or innocence as a rapist.

 

[eirik]

Why? Did someone communicate with Wikileaks and was subsequientially charged?

There was not brought any charges in this case. Did you miss it when the journalist mangled the "secret" (any US citicen can ask for it..) document?

 

[a_unique_person]

Why? Did someone communicate with Wikileaks and was subsequientially charged?

There was not brought any charges in this case. Did you miss it when the journalist mangled the "secret" (any US citicen can ask for it..) document?

If you can believe the reporter, that is how the law works. If this classification involves the possibility of a death penalty, then it's something to be taken seriously.

 

[eirik]

See, I don't believe reporters in general. They have to make their arguments and rely on sources, like the next person.

E.g: This does not concern Wikileaks. The law in question is a law for US military personel, people who has chosen to work for the US military, and under contract.

When he misses these simple points, how can we expect him to understand the more complicated ones?

 

[eirik]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

The counter-intelligence investigation focused on whether the analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance and access to the US military's Secret Internet Protocol Router network, had disclosed classified or sensitive information to WikiLeaks supporters, described as an "anti-US and/or anti-military group".

The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".

She was suspected of it, but she was never charged, because they didn't see that she had broken any laws, and specifically this one..

How do the journalist get from there to "OMG wikileaks is an enemy of the state!!"?

The investigators decision was that no law had been broken. And who knows (the journalist didn't publish the document, just two sentences from it), perhaps it is because Wikileaks is not an enemy of the United States, as the term is used in the military code:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl99.htm

(b) Enemy. “Enemy” includes organized forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations. “Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other.

 

[BenBurch]

I am aware of no US law mandating death for people in that supposed category.

If there is such a category.

If Assange is in it.

And honestly, doesn't he belong on a list of people dangerous to the USA and who need to be watched?

Because whatever happens, every move he makes for the rest of his miserable life will be observed closely.

He will have more tails than a box of kittens.

 

[a_unique_person]

See, I don't believe reporters in general. They have to make their arguments and rely on sources, like the next person.

E.g: This does not concern Wikileaks. The law in question is a law for US military personel, people who has chosen to work for the US military, and under contract.

When he misses these simple points, how can we expect him to understand the more complicated ones?

The article states just what you stated, they understood what they were reporting.