Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[John Mekki]

I do not collect evidence - that is not my job. The point with an independent judicial system is that it has to collect the evidence.

Independent.
That is the right word.

Specifically the police has to collect evidence. The prosecution authority has to decide if the evidence is enough to prosecute. The evidence is presented to the courts by the prosecution, and the courts make the decision on whether to convict.

Possibly without any kind of political pressure in one way or the other

This process has been running for quite some time now. Along the way (at least some of) the evidence collection that the police and prosecutors have done has been leaked, and has also been translated to English. Some of it can be read in the courts documents from England. A lot of this has been linked from the Jack of Kent blog that you have already gotten links to. Here are some additional links:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-approved-judgment.pdf
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

I am not reading all the above pages, please.
If you have something to say, just write it here

You agree that JA should answer to the Swedish judicial system? Could you then spell out what in your opinion should happen?

In principle yes, once it has been clarified that the whole issue has been not influenced by any political pressure

What is a possibility? That Ricardo Patiño lied about that JA should answer to the accusations? I'm sorry, but I can't make head or tails on what you are trying to say.

As I said, in principle I agree, read above.

 

[John Mekki]

When did I claim that you did? Everything is not about you, there is a whole world out there.

Oh, OK

So what is your suggested alternative to independent courts, and specifically how should that be applied in the JA case?

In my personal opinion, another way would be to prosecute Assange only and only when it has been made clear without any possible doubt that the prosecution will involve only the rape charges and not Wikileaks.
And that he will receive a fair trail based only on the matter at hand

So your argument is that since JA is special (he started/fronted Wikileaks), therefore the case is special?

Not exactly because of Wikileaks, but because in this very case there are suspects that the whole case may be polluted by political influences from..

Well, in my view we cannot do this kind of decision based on statistics. If there is only one person in the world that fits this profile, we won't be able to find any other case that is like this. But to say that "therefore it did not happen" just doesn't work. There is a first for everything.

If by "therefore it did not happen" you mean that Assange did not rape the women, I agree.
Still, the statistics would not work

So I'm sorry but that argument does not work for me. That is like saying that since there have never before 2001 been two towers in NY that fell due to a terrorist attack using airplanes, it couldn't have happened in 2001 either. You will need to show me that lies have been involved.

If I remember well, you showed (or someone else did) statistics that the Swedish judiciary system is very fine.
But in this way you do not consider that all the cases (or 99.9% of them) were not suspected of being influenced by international politics matters.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Independent.
That is the right word.
Possibly without any kind of political pressure in one way or the other

Good, that puts you apart from for example Ecuador and to other people that have asked for legal guarantees from Sweden. They are asking for the Swedish government to involve themselves in a legal case. Swedens answer has been that the law will be followed.

Here you have it, straight from the Swedish Government official site:

Sweden has an independent judiciary and, if the issue were to arise, any request for extradition would be handled in accordance with Swedish laws. Swedish legislation does not foresee the possibility of issuing guarantees that extradition will not take place.

I am not reading all the above pages, please.
If you have something to say, just write it here

Well, this is not good.

You specifically asked for information on the evidence against JA. You got links to where you can educate yourself. My links were to official sources, and to a post I made on this forum that also links to the sources. Earlier links posted is to the Jack of Kent blog - a poster on this forum (David Allen Green) that also has worked hard to ensure that he has verifiable sources and that can serve as a good way to find relevant information and laws.

Also, rule 4 of this forum tells us not to "post large amounts of material available from other sites".

So I will consider your question about evidence against JA answered and move on.

In principle yes, once it has been clarified that the whole issue has been not influenced by any political pressure

As I said, in principle I agree, read above.

Good, so how should that happen? Who can clarify that, and how?

 

[Here_to_learn]

In my personal opinion, another way would be to prosecute Assange only and only when it has been made clear without any possible doubt that the prosecution will involve only the rape charges and not Wikileaks.
And that he will receive a fair trail based only on the matter at hand

Not exactly because of Wikileaks, but because in this very case there are suspects that the whole case may be polluted by political influences from..

If by "therefore it did not happen" you mean that Assange did not rape the women, I agree.
Still, the statistics would not work

If I remember well, you showed (or someone else did) statistics that the Swedish judiciary system is very fine.
But in this way you do not consider that all the cases (or 99.9% of them) were not suspected of being influenced by international politics matters.

So, again, I ask:

• Who can ensure that there is no political influence on the judicial system, what actions should that person/group do that has not already happened?
• What evidence is there that the suspicion about political influence is true?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sex by surprise is a form of "rape" unknown outside of Sweden

I bet all the assange haters would be as equally adamant that if someone else was wanted for a crime that doesn't exist in the West, say adultery in an Islamic country that they too go and face the music, even if it meant getting stoned to death? Right? Suuure you would

Whereas, funnily enough, sticking your unprotected dick into a woman while she is asleep, especially after having been told no sex without a condom, is what we in the western world like to call rape.

 

[PhantomWolf]

the prosecution must prove that sexual penetration took place
without the consent of the complainant.

How can the sex be consentual is the woman is asleep at penetration?

These are the physical elements of the offence, or actus reus. In the common law jurisdictions—NSW, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT—the prosecution must also prove that the accused knew that the victim was not consenting or was reckless about whether there was such consent.[24] This is known as the mental element of the offence, or mens rea.

If you have been told "No sex without a condom" multiple times throughout the night do you think that this might mean that there was no consent to have sex without a condom?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

How can the sex be consentual is the woman is asleep at penetration?

It's not possible is it? This kinda disproves BP's ridiculous assertion and kinda shows him to be an apologist for a rapist. How nice.

I would like to point out that this is Australian law. I sincerely hope nobody in Australia has behaved along the same lines as their hero JA. I would suggest they and JA fall well and truly into the "misogynistic" category.

If you have been told "No sex without a condom" multiple times throughout the night do you think that this might mean that there was no consent to have sex without a condom?

I thing we can safely put BP's assertion to bed as a desperate grope in the dark (so to speak) to try and find some support for the little grub JA.

 

[zooterkin]

I have no intention to read another person blog.

Even when the blog is by someone who is actually an expert on the subject under discussion (as well as, coincidentally, being a member here), and therefore much more able to present the information?

 

[PhantomWolf]

If by "therefore it did not happen" you mean that Assange did not rape the women, I agree.

So why exactly would one of JA's supporters (at the time) lie about what happened between them?

(I'm going to note here since John clrearly still hasn't actually read any of the case itself, only one of the women described an incident that classifies as rape and there is only a single rape allegation.)

 

[nathan]

I bet all the assange haters would be as equally adamant that if someone else was wanted for a crime that doesn't exist in the West, say adultery in an Islamic country that they too go and face the music, even if it meant getting stoned to death? Right? Suuure you would

That would fail the dual criminality requirement (at least).

 

[nathan]

Flip flop flip flop ...

I just think Assange is innocent

So, do you think that Assange should give himself up and be extradited to face the accusations of rape and sexual molestation?

I have never said that he should not.

When did I say that charges against Assange were made up?

 

[TjW]

So why exactly would one of JA's supporters (at the time) lie about what happened between them?

(I'm going to note here since John clrearly still hasn't actually read any of the case itself, only one of the women described an incident that classifies as rape and there is only a single rape allegation.)

I was under the impression that the facts about what happened were stipulated to by Assange and his defense team.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I was under the impression that the facts about what happened were stipulated to by Assange and his defense team.

Not as far as I know - the agreed facts is not about the actual actions with the two women, but cover how the case has progressed.

I'm not sure what level of detail was covered in the first interview with JA, and as we know, the swedish investigation would like to interview him again.

 

[Alt+F4]

Is that fool still keeping HIMSELF arrested?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Is that fool still keeping HIMSELF arrested?

I so much hope that you are talking about JA in the embassy, and not about me still posting in this thread, but I'm afraid the answer is yes for both...

 

[John Mekki]

Good, that puts you apart from for example Ecuador and to other people that have asked for legal guarantees from Sweden. They are asking for the Swedish government to involve themselves in a legal case. Swedens answer has been that the law will be followed.

I have read part of it and where exactly are they guaranteeing that Assange will not be extradited?

Here you have it, straight from the Swedish Government official site:

Ah!!
I see
So the Swedish Government will not guarantee that extradition to third country (i.e. the US) will not take place.
I somehow suspected that they would not

Well, this is not good.

You specifically asked for information on the evidence against JA. You got links to where you can educate yourself. My links were to official sources, and to a post I made on this forum that also links to the sources. Earlier links posted is to the Jack of Kent blog - a poster on this forum (David Allen Green) that also has worked hard to ensure that he has verifiable sources and that can serve as a good way to find relevant information and laws.

Also, rule 4 of this forum tells us not to "post large amounts of material available from other sites".

HTL,
many people in this forum have other businesses a part from replying to you here.
Therefore, if you send a huge quantity of information (pages and pages) at least you should quote the passages where you believe that they are supporting what you are saying.

So I will consider your question about evidence against JA answered and move on.

Consider as you wish

Good, so how should that happen? Who can clarify that, and how?

I have already had.
First thing I do not believe that any Government can not give guarantees about extradition.
So, the Swedish and the US Governments should give guarantees about this
The fact that they say they can not is untenable, IMHO.
Second thing, if the US Government is really serious about justice, they would do a good thing to prosecute the crimes that came out from Wikileaks and avoid to punish with decades in jail the young guy that leaked the data while set free the other guy who killed 28 civilians unarmed in Iraq.
Just for a start.

 

[John Mekki]

Even when the blog is by someone who is actually an expert on the subject under discussion (as well as, coincidentally, being a member here), and therefore much more able to present the information?

Next time, I will give you a book of 300 pages to read in answer to some of your questions, and then blame you if you do not read it all, notes included.

So, again, I ask:
Who can ensure that there is no political influence on the judicial system, what actions should that person/group do that has not already happened?

I have already replied on this

What evidence is there that the suspicion about political influence is true?

If by "evidence" you mean a mail by Obama to the Swedish Government telling them to extradite JA to the US, I do not think there can be any of such evidence, unless there is an enormous leak of info (I mean, another one).
Or you imply that, in order to have evidence, we should have Hillary Clinton come out and say in public "Yes, we want to have Assange extradited?"
If instead by "evidence" you mean strong hints that the US Government wants Assange dead/in jail for many years/extradited, I think I have already listed many

 

[John Mekki]

Whereas, funnily enough, sticking your unprotected dick into a woman while she is asleep, especially after having been told no sex without a condom, is what we in the western world like to call rape.

If I may ..
You should not believe 100% what your Government or other Government or other people told you just because they told you something.
People do lie sometimes.

 

[John Mekki]

Even when the blog is by someone who is actually an expert on the subject under discussion (as well as, coincidentally, being a member here), and therefore much more able to present the information?

Next time to reply to one of HTL questions I will quote a book of 300 pages and ask to read it all

So why exactly would one of JA's supporters (at the time) lie about what happened between them?
[..]

Why the US Government lied about WMD in Iraq?
Why the Pakistani Government lied that they were not after nukes before showing up that they have nukes?
Why Berlusconi lied that he did not pay for sex with a minor?
Why my brother lied to me that he did not steal my tie?
PW, if I may, in the real world people do lie, please try to think about this

 

[zooterkin]

I have read part of it and where exactly are they guaranteeing that Assange will not be extradited?

They don't, of course, and they explain why that is not going to happen. (As does Jack of Kent, by the way.)

Why is there an assumption that it would be easier for the USA to extradite Assange from Sweden than from the UK, anyway? My understanding is that they would need approval from both Sweden and the UK to do that. So, they might as well apply for the UK to do it. The UK seems more pliable to the USA's demand for extradition, anyway.