Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Here_to_learn]

Given that Assange has a legitimate concern about extraordinary rendition or extradition from Sweden to the US, the "questioning" phase of the investigation should be conducted by Swedish officials in the UK, where Assange may be better safeguarded against extraordinary rendition or extradition to the US.

Note regarding this that JA has stated in an interview that the only reason he went to Sweden in the first place was to get away from US authorities that was acting in the UK:

I only visited Sweden because the FBI came to the UK and raided one of my alleged source's mother's house, Bradley Manning, in Wales. So the FBI was here in the UK, stomping around the UK, and we thought I'd better get out. And I managed to get some people to write an invite to a talk on the first casualty of... Sorry, the first casualty of the war is the truth, in Sweden, and use that invite as sort-of a safe passage to get out through UK customs to Sweden

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But there wasn't consensual sex without a condom.

Depends on how you interpret the evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When you consented to sex with a condom, not without, then it is.....

At that point you say, no. Otherwise you are saying, I'd prefer the condom but I'm not insisting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic Ginger, thank you for your willingness to continue engaging in a discussion which is clearly somewhat frustrating for you.

Do I understand your position correctly, as follows?

• The "rape" allegations against Assange may be false--this possibility should be considered;
• The investigation should proceed, with the understanding that if the allegations are false and justice is served, Assange will be acquitted (or never even brought to trial);
• Given that Assange has a legitimate concern about extraordinary rendition or extradition from Sweden to the US, the "questioning" phase of the investigation should be conducted by Swedish officials in the UK, where Assange may be better safeguarded against extraordinary rendition or extradition to the US.

Is that an accurate summary of your position?

Yes with a few tweaks.

I think the evidence points to (notice please, I did not say 'proves') a malicious prosecution and two sour grapes women who originally only wanted JA to show remorse for being a cad and get an HIV test.

And I would have said "where Assange reasonably believes he may be better safeguarded". I believe the US government is capable of doing the things JA fears, I don't know if they actually will.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Note regarding this that JA has stated in an interview that the only reason he went to Sweden in the first place was to get away from US authorities that was acting in the UK:

I think JA's comments are legitimate to consider. But one must also consider things change in a fluid environment, and, the threat of the "minor rape" charges, especially given the flimsy evidence, suggests he has little reason to fear facing a prosecution for serious rape charges.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, for example why it would be unlikely to hold up in court, and that based on Swedish law, not on your thoughts on what Swedish law should be.

Because there is only the girls word against JA's, the total circumstances suggest the sex was consensual, and the condom that was supposedly torn on purpose is not only incredulous, there was no DNA on it.

I'd also like to see a clarification on why you think you opinion on what is wrong with how Swedish authorities perform the investigation is relevant, when JAs legal team couldn't find a way to argue that same point.Of course you can hold the opinion, it's just that that opinion is very uninteresting since it's not based on facts relevant to the case.

For example, the UK Supreme Courts did in fact rule on a technicality on what the law actually meant (the definition of a judicial authority), while the High Courts (that I have reference in my last couple of posts) ruled on how the law should be applied, for example on if the actions could constitute a crime (in both countries), and if the way the Swedish authorities are acting are relevant. That you dismiss them as "legal technicalities" does not make them so, unless you want to clam that all courts decisions are based on "legal technicalities", in which case I can't see that your argument is of any use.

I answered this: "just because the Swedish prosecutor can extradite JA instead of interviewing him in the UK, that does not mean that was the prosecutor's only option, the best option, or the most efficient/least costly option. It suggests the prosecutor has additional motives in this case, not simply a desire to see some poor victimized women get justice.

 

[WildCat]

Depends on how you interpret the evidence.

No, it actually depends on how the proper legal authorities/entities interpret the evidence. Something Assange is desperately trying to avoid.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Because there is only the girls word against JA's, the total circumstances suggest the sex was consensual, and the condom that was supposedly torn on purpose is not only incredulous, there was no DNA on it.

I answered this: "just because the Swedish prosecutor can extradite JA instead of interviewing him in the UK, that does not mean that was the prosecutor's only option, the best option, or the most efficient/least costly option. It suggests the prosecutor has additional motives in this case, not simply a desire to see some poor victimized women get justice.

That is not an answer, that is just restating your opinion. It does not argue on why it would suggest "additional motives", and it does not analyze the different options available and why one would be better than another. But I don't seem to be successfull in trying to get that from you, so I'll stop here.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I think JA's comments are legitimate to consider. But one must also consider things change in a fluid environment

Of course things change, but the point is of course that JA has stated that he knows US legal authorities (FBI) are acting on UK grounds. But regardless of this you mean that JA would rationally think himself safer in UK that in SE?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it actually depends on how the proper legal authorities/entities interpret the evidence. Something Assange is desperately trying to avoid.

So you can judge JA's motives just fine, but I can't judge the prosecutor's or the women's?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course things change, but the point is of course that JA has stated that he knows US legal authorities (FBI) are acting on UK grounds. But regardless of this you mean that JA would rationally think himself safer in UK that in SE?

This has been addressed.

The legal hurdles in the UK are much higher for the US while Sweden can just hand him over. There is a link to this claim a page or so back.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is not an answer, that is just restating your opinion.

Of course it's just my opinion. That's what we are talking about here, all of our opinions.

It does not argue on why it would suggest "additional motives", and it does not analyze the different options available and why one would be better than another. But I don't seem to be successfull in trying to get that from you, so I'll stop here.

Are you talking about the prosecutor's additional motives? That was addressed near the beginning of the thread and referred to throughout. She had no reason to get involved in this case. She's a high level administrator. The original prosecutor didn't find there was a provable case and declined to pursue it. There's an attorney involved who worked with the US CIA's extraordinary renditions in Sweden in the past.


As for why would just interviewing JA in the UK be a better option, again, I addressed this. Perhaps you don't consider most efficient/least costly option to be an analysis.

 

[Here_to_learn]

This has been addressed.

The legal hurdles in the UK are much higher for the US while Sweden can just hand him over. There is a link to this claim a page or so back.

There are two different things in place here. There is as extradition treaty between the US and SE, and the EAW law. In this case since SE uses EAW to get (or try to get...) JA from UK, SE is bound by EAW law, that among other things would requires UK permission for SE to be allowed to pass JA on to US.

I have not seen any legal analysis of Swedish law that shows that the US/SE treaty will overrule SE law.

 

[Silhouette]

One of the concerns of Assange and his legal team is that upon being extradited to Sweden to answer questions for the investigator is that he can be held in prison in solitary confinement when he is returned, despite not having been charged (likely to spend up to a year in custody). There is no time limit to detention in Sweden. What this means is that just an allegation of sexual misconduct, rape, molestation, etc. is enough for the authorities to place a suspect in solitary confinement while the case is being investigated. There is no presumption of innocence during the investigation as far as a suspect being able to be free on bail. If there is no time limit to detention, than if the investigation takes more than a year, that implies that a person could be held indefinitely. Though this may be the law in Sweden, it is unjust in that it allows for punitive measures before a person has even had a trial. It probably disproportionately affects men and makes me wonder how many innocent people are in solitary confinement based just on an allegation? How easy would it be to wreck someone's life by falsely accusing them of rape?

 

[Here_to_learn]

She had no reason to get involved in this case. She's a high level administrator.

This is simply not true.

The position of överåklagare (Director of Public Prosecution) means that she is responsible for a specific part of the swedish prosecution authority - namely a prosecution development centre.

Their task is to conduct methodological and legal development within different criminal areas and to be responsible for the overall knowledge within their areas of responsibility. Legal follow-up and inspection are also conducted in these places. One example of this is the fact that all appeals made against prosecution decisions are handled by the development centres.

(My Bolding)

The UC Göteborg center that she is responsible for has sexual crimes as one of their specialty areas.

We know that on august 27th, the earlier decision not to continue the investigation was appealed, and they way the Swedish prosecution service is setup as described above, the case would be assigned to Ny.

So not only had she a reason - that the case was assigned to her on appeal is exactly the way it was supposed to happen.

 

[Here_to_learn]

One of the concerns of Assange and his legal team is that upon being extradited to Sweden to answer questions for the investigator is that he can be held in prison in solitary confinement when he is returned, despite not having been charged (likely to spend up to a year in custody). There is no time limit to detention in Sweden.

Why is "up to a year" likely?

Also, although there is no upper time limit, there has to be a hearing in court every 14 days to decide if the detention still is motivated.

(Also, if I understand the US terms correctly, he would be in Jail rather than in Prison).

 

[WildCat]

This has been addressed.

The legal hurdles in the UK are much higher for the US while Sweden can just hand him over. There is a link to this claim a page or so back.

So why did Assange apply to live in Sweden in 2010, if he was so afraid they'd "just hand him over" to the US??

 

[alex04]

Though this may be the law in Sweden, it is unjust in that it allows for punitive measures before a person has even had a trial.

Or even charges, apparently. No idea why anyone would have a problem with that

 

[PhantomWolf]

Does anyone else find it mildly surprising that most of the posters that are saying it was sexual assualt are male, and the ones against it being so are female?

 

[theprestige]

Does anyone else find it mildly surprising that most of the posters that are saying it was sexual assualt are male, and the ones against it being so are female?

If by "female" you mean "Skeptic Ginger"...

... No, not really surprising at all.

As far as I can tell, the only people who might think this is actually about sexual assault are Assange, his accusers, and the Swedish prosecutor.

I don't find it surprising at all that a certain female in this thread is biased towards interpretations that favor Assange. What I do find mildly surprising is that certain other people in this thread seem to be biased against pro-Assange interpretations.