Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Sabrina]

Assange is not a US citizen. If we were to attempt to try him for espionage (which is a major stretch (look, I can bold text too!)), it would have to be in an international court, and right now the arguments I'm aware of for attempting to charge him specifically (not Wikileaks, HIM) are so weak as to be nonexistent. Therefore, in my opinion, the US is rightfully sitting back and letting Assange implode all on his own.

Assange is not immune from justice; however, the likelihood that the US could make any reasonable charge of espionage or attempt to show that Assange was the brains behind Manning giving him the classified information are slim to none at best. Therefore, and rightly so in my opinion, the US has at this point washed their hands of Assange and is concentrating on the actual perpetrator of the crime, i.e. Bradley Manning. We have no stake whatsoever in the current case against Assange in Sweden and aren't involving ourselves in any way. Therefore, Assange has no leg to stand on when it comes to his paranoid ranting about how the US is out to get him.

Should evidence surface that points to Assange actually being some sort of international spy, I'm sure the US DOJ would open an investigation into what charges they could possibly bring against him, but until it surfaces, Assange is completely and utterly safe from the US. Does that answer your question, SG?

The plain and simple fact of the matter is, there are much MUCH easier ways to get Assange than trumping up some charges against him in SWEDEN of all places. Our extradition treaty with them is one of the more convoluted and difficult to fulfill treaties we have. So why pick Sweden? Why not the UK or one of our other, closer allies with whom we have much more liberal treaties? Because when you step back and you look at the whole mess, it's fairly clear that if this were some sort of conspiracy to get Assange into the US, it's very probably the most ridiculous and convoluted plan we could have come up with, and the odds of success are practically nil. The US is hardly going to bet on anything less than a sure thing if we can help it, and this ain't it.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Even this isn't entirely correct. The Second Prosecutor cancelled the Arrest Warrent and in one case dimissed the allegations, and the second case lowered them, but the investigation itself wasn't stopped as there were still active allegations. The third prosecutor revamped the case with new allegations based on the testimony of the women involved.

You are of course correct, sorry for confusing the issue.

The Swedish Prosecution service:

Swedish proceedings

20 August 2010
The duty prosecutor orders the arrest of Julian Assange, suspected of rape and molestation.

21 August 2010
The case is transferred to a prosecutor at City Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm.

25 August 2010
The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.

27 August 2010
Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.

1 September 2010
Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seriously, Ginger, if you are so sold on this conspiracy theory, please explain why the rogue state of the US (that's basically what you're saying) would go to the trouble of pressuring two sovereign countries and allies into drumming up false charges just to get Assange extradited? Why not just rub him out? That's what Russia does.

I'm amazed at the ignoring of some very critical facts in this thread, dismissing it as CT, can't happen here, not the John Wayne America we know.

I'm not talking about any CT, I'm talking about US government actions that are not secret.

Re, why not just knock Assange off? That would be CT stuff. Can they send a drone to off someone in the UK or Sweden? Think because we assassinate people with drones that means we also have assassin teams operating in Europe?

Besides, I'm guessing killing Assange would have zero benefit and all kinds of repercussions. Arresting him, OTOH, has the benefit of lots of deterrence effect.

Are most of you really unaware of this stuff? It's been in the news on a regular basis since the media finally got far enough past 9/11 to talk about Bush's torture and imprisonment of people without trial.

NDAA

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. Each year's act also includes other provisions, some related to civil liberties....

In December 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history.

That's Obama, and that's only a year ago.

2 months ago: Shedding Light on the Dark Side – A Call to Congress to Release the SSCI Report

Last week, nearly four years after President Obama closed the CIA’s Detention, Interrogation and Rendition Program, the American public is one step closer to learning the truth about a program that sanctioned the torture of terrorism suspects. To date, it has remained shrouded in secrecy, tarnishing our international reputation and severely damaging our nation’s security.

Obama ends extraordinary rendition, then signs into law a substitute bill which, at the moment was struck down by the courts, but appealed by Obama's administration, and is probably headed eventually for the SCOTUS.

Mind you, I was and still am an Obama supporter. But this is scary stuff and we ignore it at our peril.

Michael Moore, Chris Hedges on Challenging NDAA Indefinite Detention and the "Corporate Coup d’État"

The ability of the U.S. government to jail people without charge or trial is now back in court. A group of reporters, scholars and activists are suing the Obama administration over the controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, saying it could allow for the indefinite detention of journalists and others who interact with certain groups. On Wednesday, the Justice Department asked an appeals court to reverse a judge’s earlier decision blocking indefinite detention, saying the ruling would hamper its ability to fight terrorism. On the same day, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker and activist Michael Moore and the case’s lead plaintiff, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, took part in a panel featuring some of those who were in the courtroom opposing the NDAA. We air excerpts of their remarks.

Daniel Ellsberg: NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision is Part of "Systematic Assault on Constitution"

A lawsuit challenging a law that gives the government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens is back in federal court this week. On Wednesday, a group of academics, journalists and activists will present oral arguments in court against a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, authorizing the military to jail anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial. In a landmark ruling last September, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York struck down the indefinite detention provision, saying it likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of U.S. citizens. We’re joined by Daniel Ellsberg, a plaintiff in the case and perhaps the country’s most famous whistleblower. Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, exposing the secret history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

The courts struck it down, the Obama admin could have let it drop but they instead appealed. All the while Obama says he'll never use the provision.

Karen Korematsu appeared on the Feb. 18, 2013, broadcast of The Stream television show on Al Jazeera English.

Karen talked about the Japanese American incarceration, Fred Korematsu’s legacy, and how the NDAA risks repeating our country’s past wrong of incarcerating Japanese Americans during World War II without due process. She was joined on the show by Carl Mayer, the attorney for the plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama, and Mary Murakami, who as a child was incarcerated in the Topaz Camp.

Why is it, given all this evidence, no one has answered my questions, only dismissed them as crazy CT stuff?

Oh I know, because the ACLU, Democracy Now and Al Jazeera aren't really reliable investigative news sources. Fox is so much more reliable for facts. Naturally no one dismissing these citations bothered to watch any of them or read the article or transcripts.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Why is it, given all this evidence, no one has answered my questions, only dismissed them as crazy CT stuff?

That's all very fine (or actually, it's not fine at all, but never mind that for the moment), just how does it apply to JA?

It doesn't matter that the US considers itself to have laws that allows them to do whatever they pleases, Sweden still isn't allowed to hand him over.

So unless you expect the US to follow it's own laws, but either break the law in Sweden, or some way or another get Swedish to break it's laws, JA still won't go to the US.


So take us through this step by step - assuming that the US decided to deter by grabbing JA and putting him away in Gitmo without any trial - what have they been doing so far, or alternatively, what will they do in the future?

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's ludicrous for people in this thread who call themselves 'skeptics' to dismiss the US's concern with Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning.

No one is dismissing the US's concern over Wikileaks or Manning, those are well documented. But there is no evidence of them being after Assange other than the paranoid of his own making and people jumping onto his paranoid wagon.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So much easier to kill him. Doesn't even need to leave where he is for that.

And if they really wanted to kill him, they could have sent in a wetwork team while he had his GPS locator strapped to his leg and done a Bin Laden on him, in and out before anyone even knew that it had happened.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No one is dismissing the US's concern over Wikileaks or Manning, those are well documented. But there is no evidence of them being after Assange other than the paranoid of his own making and people jumping onto his paranoid wagon.

Well that's just silly, of course there is.

Bradley Manning's inhumane treatment

The administration has provided no evidence that Manning's treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates. Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well that's just silly, of course there is.

Bradley Manning's inhumane treatment

That article is intentionally misleading.

Poor Brad has been in gen pop for two years.

In that time dozens of soldiers from his former division have been seriously injured or killed in Afghanistan.

I understand that Poor Brad had rather a difficult time getting a pillow.

Poor Brad.

 

[uke2se]

I'm amazed at the ignoring of some very critical facts in this thread, dismissing it as CT, can't happen here, not the John Wayne America we know.

Nobody is "dismissing it as CT". We are telling you that the proper label for what you spout is a conspiracy theory. It's the very definition thereof.

I'm not talking about any CT, I'm talking about US government actions that are not secret.

Yes, you are talking about a CT. You are connecting things the US government has allegedly done in the past with Assange, arguing that it's reasonable to believe they will do bad things to him - all without any evidence what so ever. This is CT behavior. Sorry if you don't like it.

Re, why not just knock Assange off? That would be CT stuff. Can they send a drone to off someone in the UK or Sweden? Think because we assassinate people with drones that means we also have assassin teams operating in Europe?

Why couldn't they assassinate Assange in Europe? Do you honestly think it would be a simpler prospect to subvert the judicial system of two sovereign nations, ordering them to drum up false charges, only to get Assange extradited from Sweden - a nation with a far less liberal extradition treaty with the US than the UK?

Besides, I'm guessing killing Assange would have zero benefit and all kinds of repercussions. Arresting him, OTOH, has the benefit of lots of deterrence effect.

So nobody would be scared if they offed him, but everyone would be oh so afraid if they arrested him?

Are most of you really unaware of this stuff? It's been in the news on a regular basis since the media finally got far enough past 9/11 to talk about Bush's torture and imprisonment of people without trial.

We are aware of the facts. We are also aware that you are grasping facts from different context in order to create a conspiracy theory.

Why is it, given all this evidence, no one has answered my questions, only dismissed them as crazy CT stuff?

Your questions have been answered, and nobody has dismissed them as crazy CT stuff, merely correctly labeled them as such.

Oh I know, because the ACLU, Democracy Now and Al Jazeera aren't really reliable investigative news sources.

Sure they are. They are also completely irrelevant to the fact that the CT you spout is laughably stupid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree to disagree.

 

[trustbutverify]

The most confusing part of all this is why thegreatsatan messes around with laws and international protocol in the first place. Why wouldn't the most sinister nation on earth (along with thezionistentity, of course) just disappear the Assanges and Mannings of the world. Why continue to allow it's most aggressive critics, such as Chomsky, to enjoy ample incomes and overflowing levels of freedom as they travel the world with tales of imperialistic horrors, produced for their partners at Press-TV and RT?

Meanwhile, truly humane and progressive islands of anti-imperialism- such as Fidel's utopia, squash any hint of criticism with a cast iron fist. What gives?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, because all liberals are commie pinko socialists. Check.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, because all liberals are commie pinko socialists. Check.

Are you suggesting that his employers in the Russian Propaganda Agency are commies?

Hmmm, curious.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you suggesting that his employers in the Russian Propaganda Agency are commies?

Hmmm, curious.

I'm suggesting there's no discussion in this thread. Why bother? I'll come back when something new in the case happens.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm suggesting there's no discussion in this thread. Why bother? I'll come back when something new in the case happens.

Or don't, you know... it is all good.

Because you certainly don't want to discuss Julian working for Russia Today, aka, KGB Today.

But you did link propaganda from what 2011? That was cool.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... Because you certainly don't want to discuss Julian working for Russia Today, aka, KGB Today.
...

Commie pinko, check.

 

[Here_to_learn]

So take us through this step by step - assuming that the US decided to deter by grabbing JA and putting him away in Gitmo without any trial - what have they been doing so far, or alternatively, what will they do in the future?

I'm suggesting there's no discussion in this thread. Why bother? I'll come back when something new in the case happens.

And maybe then you will show us the facts that support your claims.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Sv: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Ignore. Failed post from phone....

 

[Wudang]

So the laws regarding rape should be changed so that if the alleged male perpetrator has a belief, however paranoid, that the women are out to get him (say, a subordinate after his job, or a classmate jealous of his marks etc) then he shouldn't have to stand trial?

 

[Tolls]

Do you honestly think it would be a simpler prospect to subvert the judicial system of two sovereign nations, ordering them to drum up false charges, only to get Assange extradited from Sweden - a nation with a far less liberal extradition treaty with the US than the UK?

And this, still, is the key point that has not been addressed.

The whole US extradition is smoke and mirrors if the pro-Assange crowd cannot show that it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden than the UK. And none of them have managed that.