Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[uke2se]

No, they don't.

Yes, they do.

 

[Joey McGee]

rotflmao

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he will not leave the sanctuary of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London even if Sweden stops pursuing sexual assault claims against him because he fears arrest on the order of the United States.

http://news.yahoo.com/wikileaks-assange-fears-u-says-stay-london-embassy-004741908.html

lol... so even in the almost unthinkable event that the case is dropped, he's still going to hold himself hostage due to his (and his cockamamie lawyer's) paranoid theories about US extradition! I guess they tried extraditing him for the sex assaults first as part of the (bog standard tactic of the pentagon) smear campaign, and were going to hand him over to the US after they'd made him legally a rapist. Or, they would have just grabbed him and shipped him to America the moment he stepped on British soil. Or something.

 

[BenBurch]

No apparent movement on this case in over a month, unless I was unable to find anything? All the news is Manning, Snowden, and the Assange film.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Is there anyone that have followed the Manning court case in detail and that can say if anything that has come to light with regards to the JA- Manning communications in any way could indicate what type of case (if any) the US could have against JA?

 

[BenBurch]

Is there anyone that have followed the Manning court case in detail and that can say if anything that has come to light with regards to the JA- Manning communications in any way could indicate what type of case (if any) the US could have against JA?

Yes. It appears that there was significant grooming of Manning by Assange.

But there isn't that much that you could charge him with that I can think of.

He is permanently in a cell in London, sentenced to life by his own paranoia. Almost like a greek tragedy. I think we could do no better.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Via Swedish Dagens Nyheter I got to an article in the Independent:

Julian Assange could walk free from his Ecuadorian embassy hide-out next year if he takes advantages of a new legal loophole, campaigners say.

The WikiLeaks founder, wanted in Sweden to answer sexual assault charges that he denies, could "evade the law" for up to four months if his European Arrest Warrant (EAW) becomes invalid, according to experts.

Last month, David Cameron formally notified the EU council that the UK will repatriate police and criminal justice powers. It will "opt out" of 133 measures, including the EAW.

While the Government has made clear it will opt back in, there could be a "formal gap of at least a few months" while the commission deals with formalities, according to Professor Steve Peers, an EU law specialist from Essex University.

[...]
Kenny Bowie, the head of the Home Office's opt-in and treaties team, told Ms Portilho-Shrimpton that "it is not the intention to have a significant gap between the date on which a decision to opt out would take effect and the UK rejoining measures
[...]

 

[nathan]

I don't really understand the logic there. It appears to imply that the UK would walk away from any previously agreed legal findings -- not just prevent any new EAW's. Furthermore, he'd still have the problem of having broken his bail conditions -- that won't magically go away because a treaty is discontinued.

 

[EHocking]

Yes, the Wikileaks team seem to be less aware of the actual facts surrounding Assange than practically all the posters on this forum...

 

[Tolls]

Furthermore, he'd still have the problem of having broken his bail conditions -- that won't magically go away because a treaty is discontinued.

This bit.
He'd step out of the embasy and be arrested for jumping bail.
He'll then sit in a cell for a few weeks until the EAW stuff comes into effect again.

That is presuming existing warrants would actually be nullified for that period, which may be wishful thinking on his part.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It doesn't matter if Britiain opts-out of the EAW.
Court has already passed judgement that he needs to be extradited. It would need a whole new court hearing to get it overturned.
That won't happen while he is still a wanted man. He would have to surrender himself and answer the charges of failing to surrender himself to custody and evading arrest.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yup. he is wanted on outstanding charges, they won't go away. COPntempt of court, evading arrest, failing to surrender himself to the court.

Then he would have to appeal the extradition.

He isn't going anywhere just yet.

 

[BenBurch]

...
He isn't going anywhere just yet.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Here_to_learn]

This morning there is a press release from Wikileaks/JA.

http://wikileaks.org/Press-Release-WikiLeaks-Launches.html

Tomorrow morning, 3 September 2013, WikiLeaks will file a criminal complaint in Sweden, ahead of the arrival of the US delegation. The complaint concerns the likely unlawful seizure of WikiLeaks property on 27 September 2010, following its publication of thousands of classified US intelligence documents on the war in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange said: "Swedish authorities have the opportunity to demonstrate that no one, including state officials, is above the law."

This is the first of four criminal complaints to be filed in different jurisdictions by WikiLeaks during the month of September against unlawful interference in its journalistic activities.

The complaint, to be filed with Swedish police at 10 am tomorrow morning, details a number of matters not previously made public and which WikiLeaks decided to withhold until the conclusion of the court martial of PFC Chelsea Manning.

The property seized included evidence of a war crime perpetrated by US forces in Afganistan in which more than sixty women and children were killed, known as the Garani massacre. The filing follows the revelation of unlawful FBI and US intelligence activities against WikiLeaks in Europe that have been forced onto the public record through a Parliamentary inquiry in Iceland and the Manning court martial.

The affidavit is not limited to the lost laptops but also includes a description from JA regarding the Swedish visit. From a quick read through the focus seems to be that the women did not believe that it was rape, therefore it wasn't. He also repeats that he hasn't been charged, and also says about the appeal: "He applied to re-open the investigation with a different prosecutor in the otherwise unrelated city of Gothenberg." Well, yes, it's a different city, but as we know the prosecution office located in Gothenburg is tasked with all appeals regarding sexual crimes, so it's not unrelated.

He quotis from the "agreed facts" document but cherry picks from it, for example skipping over the part where the prosecution was trying to reach him for an interview him before he left Sweden.


Regarding charges from the US, I found this paragraph:

23. The charges against Bradley Manning included 'aiding the enemy' and espionage.
The 'aiding the enemy' charge carries with it a potential death sentence, or life without
parole. There is a consensus among legal commentators that the application of the 'aiding
the enemy' charge in the Bradley Manning trial constituted a serious threat to
journalism.30 While Manning was eventually acquitted of aiding the enemy, it remains a
charge that the US government could still seek to employ against others, including me.

I'm not sure of how the first part of the paragraph relates to the second part, but from I understand, the charge "aiding the enemy" does still exist in US law, and as such could be used. That is also true for DUI, breaking and entering and a lot of other charges I guess.

We'll see what (if anything) that happens with this one, but he did manage to get some press this morning which I guess was the purpose.

 

[Sabrina]

"Aiding the enemy" is, to the best of my limited Googling, only applicable to the military. The average citizen is not subject to that law, although they can still be charged under the Espionage Act. Just not with the "aiding the enemy" charge, as it's only part of the UCMJ.

 

[PhantomWolf]

While Manning was eventually acquitted of aiding the enemy, it remains a
charge that the US government could still seek to employ against others, including me.

I don't see how, Assange is neither a US citizen nor Resident. As a foreign national I can see no way that the US can lawfully charge him with aiding their enemies.

 

[jeremyp]

Yes. It appears that there was significant grooming of Manning

He is permanently in a cell in London, sentenced to life by his own paranoia. Almost like a greek tragedy. I think we could do no better.

I disagree. There is an outstanding accusation of rape against him. There are people who think him guilty of rape who might be doing so unfairly (I count myself in that group). There are people who think his accusers are guilty of lying who might be doing so unfairly. The issue needs to be resolved one way or the other by a trial.

 

[BenBurch]

I disagree. There is an outstanding accusation of rape against him. There are people who think him guilty of rape who might be doing so unfairly (I count myself in that group). There are people who think his accusers are guilty of lying who might be doing so unfairly. The issue needs to be resolved one way or the other by a trial.

There are three ways this can happen;

1. He surrenders.

2. He gets so sick that he needs hospital care.

3. The British go in and take him.

We could make #2 happen of course. It's occurred to me you could find out what he likes to eat and start sending it to him, and then one day it has a huge dose of an emetic...

 

[Locknar]

Moderated status for this thread has been removed; please keep your Membership Agreement in mind while posting - especially rule 0, rule 11, rule 12 (ie. keep the discussion civil/polite, on topic, and address the argument vs attack the arguer).

Posted By: Locknar

 

[nathan]

Ben, you missed:

4) The Americans go in and get him, smuggle him to the USA and try him. He's found not guilty and then extradited to Sweden.

I mention this merely for completeness.

 

[colander]

I disagree. There is an outstanding accusation of rape against him. There are people who think him guilty of rape who might be doing so unfairly (I count myself in that group). There are people who think his accusers are guilty of lying who might be doing so unfairly. The issue needs to be resolved one way or the other by a trial.

It seems rather optimistic to assume that the results of a trial would serve to sway very many people's opinions on this matter. Regardless of what we think of this particular case, we must allow that those who rely on court judgements to epistemically settle factual questions of guilt or innocence will tend to go to bed confused and headachey.