Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Wudang]

The issue at hand is that, assuming that allegations against Assange are politically motivated, then it may well be that Assange is not guilty of the things that he is prosecuted for.

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

An investigation is useful to determine whether Assange is guoilty or not, only if it is reasonably clear that the prosecution is not politically motivated

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

I have never spoke about the "truth"
I have given a list of schoilars and politicians that support the allegation that prosecution against Assange is politically motivated

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

 

[Watanabe]

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.


Which can be determined by having a trial where the politically-motivated or not prosecution can be attacked by the defence, and we've seen that Assange can get good lawyers.

No.
You can not determine the truth if the trial and the judge are subjected to pressure from (for example) the Swedish and the American Government

 

[Watanabe]

Which proves what? Nothing more than that there is a list of people, that includes Presidents Lula and Correa, who believe in something that isn't true.

Does not prove.
But there is evidence that the whole allegations may be politically motivated

It's the discussion we're having. Because you seem to dismiss the seriousness of the allegations by saying "Oh, they're politically motivated."
If the allegations are true, it doesn't really matter if they're politically motivated or not. People shouldn't be allowed to rape, even if they happen to be Julian Assange. Even if they've embarrassed the U.S. a few years ago.

How do you determine if the allegations are true if the whole prosecution is politically motivated?

Lawyers who do understand international law all agree that it is harder to extradite from Sweden after he's got there than it is from the UK without any move to Sweden.

False.
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-chamber/news/‘does-anyone-seriously-think-this-is-about-a-broke

 

[Andy_Ross]

Watanabe, Do you have any opinion on why the US didn't extradite him from the UK when they had the chance? The UK even had him in custody for a while.?

I have asked a couple of times but you have never responded.

 

[nathan]

You can not determine the truth if the trial and the judge are subjected to pressure from (for example) the Swedish and the American Government

That is of course a hypothetical issue though. So I think it can be safely disregarded.

 

[nathan]

But there is evidence that the whole allegations may be politically motivated

Care to reference it?

 

[BenBurch]

One of the victims speaks (maybe);

http://www.smh.com.au/world/assange-accuser-tells-of-ordeal-20130516-2jpn1.html

<SNIP>

One of the two Swedish women who accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes is believed to have written publicly about her ordeal for what is believed to be the first time.

The woman, whose name has not been officially disclosed or published in the Swedish media but has been circulated widely on the internet as one of the Assange accusers, wrote in a blog post that she was "the victim of an assault" three years ago.

Friends of her assailant and others with ulterior motives had "rapidly decided that something was suspicious. That I was lying. That the perpetrator was innocent", she wrote.


<SNIP>

 

[Wudang]

Does not prove.
False.
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-chamber/news/‘does-anyone-seriously-think-this-is-about-a-broke

Manifestly not false.
"Burnside explained that the Swedish prosecutor visited England in December to obtain the European Arrest Warrant seeking Assange’s extradition to Sweden, but chose not to question him at that time, even though questioning was the sole purpose of the warrant."
(emphasis added)
Blatant ignorance of Swedish law as you would know if you had read this
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

 

[PhantomWolf]

No.
You can not determine the truth if the trial and the judge are subjected to pressure from (for example) the Swedish and the American Government

So in your world to get off a prosecution all one has to do is claim that the charges are politically motivated and you should be alled to get off scoot free?

 

[Watanabe]

That is of course a hypothetical issue though. So I think it can be safely disregarded.

If you say so

Care to reference it?

I already did several times, I ll do again

The US soldiers who commit crimes in Iraq and were exposed by the leaks were not punished

Manifestly not false.
"Burnside explained that the Swedish prosecutor visited England in December to obtain the European Arrest Warrant seeking Assange’s extradition to Sweden, but chose not to question him at that time, even though questioning was the sole purpose of the warrant."
(emphasis added)
Blatant ignorance of Swedish law as you would know if you had read this
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Since you are not an expert in Swedish law either ( I assume), how can you tell that the quoted Australian lawyer is wrong while your right-wingish crap news site is right?

 

[Here_to_learn]

No.
You can not determine the truth if the trial and the judge are subjected to pressure from (for example) the Swedish and the American Government

So what should happen in your view - who should find out the truth?

Note that Sweden does have systems in place to check if polititians and/or government agencies are acting outside the law, for example http://www.jo.se/en/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_the_Constitution_(Parliament_of_Sweden)

If JA or his counsel belives that the prosecutor or courts have been subjected to preassure, they can file a complaint. As far as I know, they haven't done this. Actually, as far as I know, anybody can file a complaint.

 

[Tolls]

False.
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-chamber/news/‘does-anyone-seriously-think-this-is-about-a-broke

Nothing there says anything about how the implementing the EAW, and getting Assange to Sweden, actually makes it harder to extradite to the US.

So my point still stands...lawyers who understand how the EAW works realise it is harder to extradite from Sweden under the EAW than from the UK pre-EAW. The former requires the agreement of both Sweden and the UK, the later merely required the agreement of the UK.

You have failed time and again to show that this is false.

And clearly Burnside doesn't have a scooby what he's talking about. The whole "broken condom" thing highlights that quite clearly.

 

[Wudang]

Since you are not an expert in Swedish law either ( I assume), how can you tell that the quoted Australian lawyer is wrong while your right-wingish crap news site is right?

Because if you'd followed the links in the article I keep posting you'd find it leading to actual experts in Swedish law. And again New Statesman is centre-left, it's not right-wing just because it supports womens rights.

 

[Wudang]

The US soldiers who commit crimes in Iraq and were exposed by the leaks were not punished

US soldiers in Iraq are not subject to Swedish, UK or European law.

 

[nathan]

If you say so

glad you agree.

I already did several times, I ll do again

no, you have not.

The US soldiers who commit crimes in Iraq and were exposed by the leaks were not punished

Non sequiteur.

So, still no evidence for your claims.

 

[Watanabe]

Nothing there says anything about how the implementing the EAW, and getting Assange to Sweden, actually makes it harder to extradite to the US.

So my point still stands...lawyers who understand how the EAW works realise it is harder to extradite from Sweden under the EAW than from the UK pre-EAW. The former requires the agreement of both Sweden and the UK, the later merely required the agreement of the UK.

You have failed time and again to show that this is false.

And clearly Burnside doesn't have a scooby what he's talking about. The whole "broken condom" thing highlights that quite clearly.

The Australian lawyer I have quoted is skeptic that "it is all about a broken condom".
Assuming that he is not stupid, he already knows what you are stating above.
On which grounds do you think he does not understand nothing about "how the EAW works"?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I already did several times, I ll do again

The US soldiers who commit crimes in Iraq and were exposed by the leaks were not punished

Totally irrelevant.

Firstly US Soldiers are not under the jurisdiction of the Swedish Courts and so Sweden has no say if they are charged or not. Assange is accused of breaking Swedish Law in Sweden, something that the Swedish Justice System can act on.

Secondly, there is no requirement for one justice system to not bring charges to bear against someone because a different justice system didn't bring worse charges against someone else.

Thirdly, those that actually can bring charges against those US Soldiers have seen the footage and stated that they did not commit a War Crime, which is why there has been no charges brought.

For the record, if civilians are killed on a battlefield because they are mistaken for insurgents, then the fault actually lies with the insurgents who aren't wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from the surrounding civilians not the soldiers who make the mistake.

Personally I think that the helicopter crew should have watched the vehicle and directed ground troops to it for capture, but legally, the ones responsible for the killings were the insurgents, just as a bank robber is responsible for a teller's death during a robbery, even if she was shot by a cop.

Since you are not an expert in Swedish law either ( I assume), how can you tell that the quoted Australian lawyer is wrong while your right-wingish crap news site is right?

Under UK law the Swedish prosecutors cannot question Assange in the UK. They can send an application with a request for him to be questioned by police in the UK, part of which is a list of questions they would like to be asked.

If that is accepted (which it might not be) and acted on (in due course based on resources available) they might be allowed (totally at Scotland Yard's discretion) to watch the interview as a UK police officer asks the questions provided to them. They cannot intervene or ask further questions themselves. It is illegal for any person who is not a sworn UK police officer to conduct or partake in a police interview in the UK.

This is black and white in UK law, it has even been posted in this thread a number of pages back, and yet the pro-Assange still ask why the Swedish Prosecutor didn't do it. It's got to the same point of Pro-Hoaxers asking why there are no stars in the Apollo photos.

 

[nathan]

Assuming that he is not stupid, he already knows what you are stating above.

Incorrect. Non-stupid people can be ignorant.

On which grounds do you think he does not understand nothing about "how the EAW works"?

What exactly does he claim about the EAW?

If it's the claim that the EAW is just for interviewing JA, then Wudung has already addressed that point. And you'd know it, if indeed you have read the David Green article you claim to have read -- you know, the one that's been cited several times in this thread, and several times to you. If you think David Green is incorrect, what exactly do you think he is wrong about?

 

[PhantomWolf]

The Australian lawyer I have quoted is skeptic that "it is all about a broken condom".

But it's not "all about a broken condom" it has never been "all about a broken condom" and for someone to clam to be sceptical because they don't think it is "all about a broken condom" clearly shows that they don't actually know what it is about since it's not and never has been about that and anyone that actually knows the case knows that. There is no reason to be sceptical about it being "all about a broken condom" because it never was. It's like saying you are sceptical that the sky is purple with orange stripes.

 

[Watanabe]

So what should happen in your view - who should find out the truth?

If Governments were really after the truth it is clear that they would prosecute all the crimes shown in the leaks, not just the person who helped the leaks come out

Note that Sweden does have systems in place to check if polititians and/or government agencies are acting outside the law, for example http://www.jo.se/en/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_the_Constitution_(Parliament_of_Sweden)

If JA or his counsel belives that the prosecutor or courts have been subjected to preassure, they can file a complaint. As far as I know, they haven't done this. Actually, as far as I know, anybody can file a complaint.

And the system is controlled by the Swesdish Government which is the one suspected to go after Assange because of the leaks.

Because if you'd followed the links in the article I keep posting you'd find it leading to actual experts in Swedish law. And again New Statesman is centre-left, it's not right-wing just because it supports womens rights.

So you are claiming that we should believe the New Statesman as they support women rights?
Ridiculous

What do women rights have to do with Assange?

Nothing there says anything about how the implementing the EAW, and getting Assange to Sweden, actually makes it harder to extradite to the US.

So my point still stands...lawyers who understand how the EAW works realise it is harder to extradite from Sweden under the EAW than from the UK pre-EAW. The former requires the agreement of both Sweden and the UK, the later merely required the agreement of the UK.

You have failed time and again to show that this is false.

Never claimed that it is

And clearly Burnside doesn't have a scooby what he's talking about. The whole "broken condom" thing highlights that quite clearly.

I do not think you are in a position to say this, do you?

US soldiers in Iraq are not subject to Swedish, UK or European law.

Sweden is an ally of the US and if they wanted they could have protested for the crimes.

Totally irrelevant.

Completely relevant

Firstly US Soldiers are not under the jurisdiction of the Swedish Courts and so Sweden has no say if they are charged or not. Assange is accused of breaking Swedish Law in Sweden, something that the Swedish Justice System can act on.

Completely irrelevant.
Sweden is an ally of the US
Sweden could have protested

Secondly, there is no requirement for one justice system to not bring charges to bear against someone because a different justice system didn't bring worse charges against someone else.

There is the moral requirement

Thirdly, those that actually can bring charges against those US Soldiers have seen the footage and stated that they did not commit a War Crime, which is why there has been no charges brought.

Ridiculous.
They did as shooting to civilians is a crime

For the record, if civilians are killed on a battlefield because they are
Under UK law the Swedish prosecutors cannot question Assange in the UK. They can send an application with a request for him to be questioned by police in the UK, part of which is a list of questions they would like to be asked.

If that is accepted (which it might not be) and acted on (in due course based on resources available) they might be allowed (totally at Scotland Yard's discretion) to watch the interview as a UK police officer asks the questions provided to them. They cannot intervene or ask further questions themselves. It is illegal for any person who is not a sworn UK police officer to conduct or partake in a police interview in the UK.

This is black and white in UK law, it has even been posted in this thread a number of pages back, and yet the pro-Assange still ask why the Swedish Prosecutor didn't do it. It's got to the same point of Pro-Hoaxers asking why there are no stars in the Apollo photos.

Since when Governments care about what is written in the laws?