Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Jesus Christ...

Can You Read English?

Yeah, and I think a professor emeritus in international law in Sweden's opinion complete with cited legal grounds is more credible than you guys:

Last Friday, a Swedish professor of international law stated that the reason why the prosecutor will not question Julian Assange in London is that it has become ”a matter of prestige” not to do so. ...
It seems increasingly clear that the prosecutor’s refusal to accept Assange’s offer to be interviewed in London has much to do with prestige and little with law.

That's very clear English.

 

[uke2se]

Yeah,

Well, then you must just not want to read English. You should try it. It makes your arguments look less dumb.

and I think a professor emeritus in international law in Sweden's opinion complete with cited legal grounds is more credible than you guys:That's very clear English.

Please link to this professor's entire claim, not just the bit you quote-mined.

ETA: "Under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people abroad." That's the quote that's bandied around by Assange sycophants. However, as PhantomWolf has repeatedly attempted to make you understand, it is not possible under British law.

Do you get it yet or do you need another go?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah, and I think a professor emeritus in international law in Sweden's opinion complete with cited legal grounds is more credible than you guys:That's very clear English.

If you read the article that was the source, well directly about the source which was a radio show, he said:

"Under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people abroad."

And he is correct, there is no Swedish law that stops interrogation overseas, it is a UK law that stops anyone that is not a British Police Officer acting like a British Police Officer when in the UK. The UK Law is simple, no one but British Police can act as Police in the UK, not the FBI, not the Mounties, not the Gendarmeries, and not Ms Ny. Interviewing suspects is reserved for the British Police, only a British Police Officer can do it, no matter what you want to think. Go and read the Law. That is what matters. You keep trying to quote your article in arguement, but you haven't bothered to actually read the law itself. Why?

As to the claim that it was a ”a matter of prestige”. I don't entirely disagree with him. He likely thinks that not just getting the British Police to do the interview was silly and a matter of pride. I'd suggest that while that was likely a part, actually doing the interview yourself is a much more prefered way for all LEOs. Reading a transcript. or even having someone else do it with a list of pre-determined questions while you watch is no where as effective as being able to conduct the interview yourself and respond to and requestion the suspect in a fluid manner based on their responses. So yes I can see it from a Professors point of view where anyone should do and a British Police Officer is as good as Ms Ny herself, and I can see it from the point of vioew of a LEO who wants to do it personally and have full control of the interview, so I think both can be right, from their own points of view.

It still doesn't change the fact that Ms Ny has no authority and can get no authority to conduct an interview in the UK.

 

[uke2se]

As I doubt Skeptic Ginger is enough of a skeptic to actually look at what Professor Bring actually says, I'll just post a link here. It makes a complete mockery of the Assange sycophants' arguments.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5235707

Note that the Professor says that

"It would have been possible to go to London directly, many months ago, when he had just arrived there. But now it's a matter of prestige, and it's a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but for the Swedish legal system. To make an exception for him, because he is a famous person, is not a very good idea now. The exception should have been made earlier on, when it was less dramatic."

My bold.

Also, please note that Professor Bring doesn't have any comments on the fact that British law doesn't allow Swedish prosecutors from interviewing a suspect on British soil.

 

[uke2se]

As to the claim that it was a ”a matter of prestige”. I don't entirely disagree with him. He likely thinks that not just getting the British Police to do the interview was silly and a matter of pride. I'd suggest that while that was likely a part, actually doing the interview yourself is a much more prefered way for all LEOs. Reading a transcript. or even having someone else do it with a list of pre-determined questions while you watch is no where as effective as being able to conduct the interview yourself and respond to and requestion the suspect in a fluid manner based on their responses. So yes I can see it from a Professors point of view where anyone should do and a British Police Officer is as good as Ms Ny herself, and I can see it from the point of vioew of a LEO who wants to do it personally and have full control of the interview, so I think both can be right, from their own points of view.

I'd say it's much more likely that Professor Bring wasn't aware that Swedish LEO couldn't interview a suspect in Britain. He doesn't even raise that point. After all, a Professor in Swedish law isn't necessarily a master of every other nation's laws.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'd say it's much more likely that Professor Bring wasn't aware that Swedish LEO couldn't interview a suspect in Britain. He doesn't even raise that point. After all, a Professor in Swedish law isn't necessarily a master of every other nation's laws.

While it is possible that he is unaware of the UK law, I was prefering to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The thing that does make it funny is that while people like Prof. Ove Bring, and former prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem say that the prosecutors could have gone to London early on (which we know from UK Law would have required an MLA request, then the UK Police getting around to it and agreeing to have the Swedish team observe the interview) they agree that Ms Ny was fully within her rights to do it the way she did.

 

[BenBurch]

The lawyers who know their stuff say all this is nonsense and the slimey little bastard should go to Sweden to face his crimes.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The lawyers who know their stuff say all this is nonsense and the slimey little bastard should go to Sweden to face his crimes.

You've accused the wrong party of being slimy little bastards here. They are lawyers for heavens sake.

He explains all this in the above interview.

 

[tyr_13]

You've accused the wrong party of being slimy little bastards here. They are lawyers for heavens sake.

He explains all this in the above interview.

What does he explain and what evidence supports it?

 

[The Big Dog]

You've accused the wrong party of being slimy little bastards here. They are lawyers for heavens sake.

He explains all this in the above interview.

Sport, that interview is from 2010. Julian went through the whole extradition hearing, ran off to a anti-press stalwart Ecuador, destroyed whatever credibility that Wikileaks once thought it had, and signed on to the Kremlin's propaganda wing since then.

I am going to have to insist that you time warp through the time that Wikileaks stopped being relevant and now to today when Julian is considered one of the most self-absorbed hypocrites in history.

Welcome to 2013!

 

[Mycroft]

Unfortunately I can understand how people who believe themselves to be skeptics can be convinced a person is a rapist based on news accounts, no physical evidence to speak of, the word of a couple of accusers with questionable stories, and the fact the guy is "creepy".

Yeah, it's almost as though ordinary claims only require ordinary evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, it's almost as though ordinary claims only require ordinary evidence.

What evidence? It's a he said she said between a creepy guy and two creepy women.

Much as women deserve justice, I don't think sending men to jail with the amount of evidence in this case is a way to get it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

We are getting a bit ahead of ourselves aren't we? He has not even gone to court to defend the charges, moreover, we don't fully know what evidence the authorities actually have. Presumably they have a little bit more than just a he says, she says scenario or they wouldn't be pursuing it.
I agree that sending someone to jail based only on the testimony of a disgruntled individual would not be justice, but they all deserve their day in court.

I would also add that the actions of Assange could easily be construed as the actions of a man who knows there is more evidence.

 

[theprestige]

We are getting a bit ahead of ourselves aren't we? He has not even gone to court to defend the charges, moreover, we don't fully know what evidence the authorities actually have. Presumably they have a little bit more than just a he says, she says scenario or they wouldn't be pursuing it.
I agree that sending someone to jail based only on the testimony of a disgruntled individual would not be justice, but they all deserve their day in court.

I would also add that the actions of Assange could easily be construed as the actions of a man who knows there is more evidence.

Strictly speaking, "gone to court to defend the charges" is a piece of business between Assange and the State, to determine if the State has permission by law to strip Assange of some of his rights.

We, Assange's fellow citizens (in a sense), may use the outcome of that business to inform our own impressions of the man. But we are not constrained to use only the outcome of that business. Within the boundaries of our law, we are free to reach whatever conclusion we like about Assange, and treat him however we see fit.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Strictly speaking, "gone to court to defend the charges" is a piece of business between Assange and the State, to determine if the State has permission by law to strip Assange of some of his rights.

We, Assange's fellow citizens (in a sense), may use the outcome of that business to inform our own impressions of the man. But we are not constrained to use only the outcome of that business. Within the boundaries of our law, we are free to reach whatever conclusion we like about Assange, and treat him however we see fit.

No argument from me on that score, I was simply pointing out that to actually determine innocence, fairness or guilt is premature without having all the facts at our (collective) disposal. All we are doing now is supposing based on what is in the public domain. There must be much more and I for one look forward to Assange having his day in court, a determination of guilty and his subsequent punishment of a public castration.

 

[theprestige]

No argument from me on that score, I was simply pointing out that to actually determine innocence, fairness or guilt is premature without having all the facts at our (collective) disposal. All we are doing now is supposing based on what is in the public domain. There must be much more and I for one look forward to Assange having his day in court, a determination of guilty and his subsequent punishment of a public castration.

Then we do in fact argue on that score.

To actually determine innocence, fairness, or guilt, is up to each of us individually, based on whatever evidence we personally weigh and consider.

The fact of his being found guilty (or not) in the eyes of the State is just another piece of evidence we may or may not consider, as we see fit.

For example, there is the O. J. Simpson case. A criminal case was brought, and the State found him innocent--which is to say, the State could not justify stripping Simpson of his rights. But there are many who regard him as a murderer even so, and many also who would have held him innocent, even if the State had found against him.

So you may personally choose to withhold judgement until the Swedish courts have issued a ruling, but that doesn't mean it's the only legitimate way to reach a conclusion. In the immortal words of the Dude, "that's just, like, your opinion, maaan."

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Whatever.
If one wishes to make a decision based on facts, get the facts. If you want to guess, you are free to do so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Presumably they have a little bit more than just a he says, she says scenario or they wouldn't be pursuing it.

That assumption is not supported by the details of this case. The original prosecutor declined to pursue charges then the women's attorney supposedly appealed.

But it is possible there are political motives involved with multiple participants in the case.

..I agree that sending someone to jail based only on the testimony of a disgruntled individual would not be justice, but they all deserve their day in court.

Which makes it unfortunate the prosecutor wouldn't interview Assange in the UK.

..I would also add that the actions of Assange could easily be construed as the actions of a man who knows there is more evidence.

Another assumption that doesn't fit the evidence. Whether you agree with Assange's paranoia or not, it certainly explains his not wanting to go to Sweden.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whatever.
If one wishes to make a decision based on facts, get the facts. If you want to guess, you are free to do so.

And the facts you based the above assumptions on were what, exactly?

 

[nathan]

Another assumption that doesn't fit the evidence. Whether you agree with Assange's paranoia or not, it certainly explains his not wanting to go to Sweden.

It's an explanation, but not the only one. It fails to be internally consistent for one thing.
Given the evidence of his prior difficulties with failing contraception and previous statements of his, I'm going on the balance of probabilities that he's wilfully evading.