Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[uke2se]

Straw man.



Have you got a source for the report in which they reportedly say this?

It's in the police investigation material. As I understand it, it's classified for an ongoing investigation.

 

[uke2se]

It is quite common for police to perform investigations overseas,

They aren't. They are performing an investigation in Sweden. The accused just escaped out of the country.

if the person of interest is living there, and they do not have the evidence to put formal charges for extradition.

They have the evidence, and it has been presented and formal extradition has been granted.

I have no idea how many millions of dollars this case has cost so far, but it belies the claim it is only normal procedure.

It is normal procedure. The only abnormal part is that the accused has managed to turn his flight from justice into an international incident.

The paranoia seems appropriate, I would be too if they assigned so many police to his case.

What is abnormal about the amount of police?

I would like to see them proceed with formal charges, if they think they have a case.

They do have a case. That has been determined by the UK High Court. They can't, however, put forth formal charges unless Assange is extradited to Sweden.

Seriously, and as a piece of good advice, if you're this underinformed, don't involve yourself.

 

[eirik]

I think that if he is accused of rape by the victims, he should face justice. It's just that anyone else in that position would not have been extradited to answer questions.

Sure they do. This is why the extradition-treaties are there in the first place. It's just that you don't here about it in the media, they focus on celebrity and the really gritty cases. Media being media.

And I hear on a daily basis in my line of work "why me, why not everybody else who commits these crimes?"

That's because today, everybody else is *you*, is a proper respond to such childish whining.

He has not been charged, and has indicated he will answer any questions they ask him. They have chosen not to ask him any.

They cannot legally charge him before he is in Sweden, but what is your point here really? Is it just legalish sounding talking points to impress? Why would a formal charge be important in the first place?

They have a warrant for arrest and questioning, not merely questioning. It's not a tea party, it's a rape case.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would like to see them proceed with formal charges, if they think they have a case.

They are proceeding with formal charges. Swedish law requires him to be in custody in order to be charged, so they have applied for his extradition in order to do so.

Have you read David Allen Green's explanation of all this?

Dave

 

[eirik]

Straw man.



Have you got a source for the report in which they reportedly say this?

Meh. It's in Hawaii.

Strangely, the police didn't publish the police report in the ongoing rape investigation. Conspiracy

 

[JihadJane]

An interesting article of the evolution of Swedish rape law:

Sweden’s debate about ’consensual rape’

Under Swedish law, consensual sex can be classified as ’rape’. What matters is not whether the complainant said ’no’ (or implied it) but whether the perpetrator uses force or the threat of force, or he takes advantage of the victim’s helpless state.

 

[Dave Rogers]

An interesting article of the evolution of Swedish rape law:

Sweden’s debate about ’consensual rape’

So if a man puts a knife to a woman's throat, orders her not to say anything, and then rapes her, or if he knocks her out by drugging her and then rapes her, that can still be classified as rape even though she didn't get the chance to say "No"? Gosh, what a shocking infringement on human rights.

Dave

 

[JihadJane]

Meh. It's in Hawaii.

It's interesting that you are happy present as fact something that you haven't verified.

Strangely, the police didn't publish the police report in the ongoing rape investigation.

Strangely, they did, or someone very close to them did.

The report was leaked.

Conspiracy

Indeed. A conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.


___________

So if a man puts a knife to a woman's throat, orders her not to say anything, and then rapes her, or if he knocks her out by drugging her and then rapes her, that can still be classified as rape even though she didn't get the chance to say "No"? Gosh, what a shocking infringement on human rights.

Dave

Straw man.

The women have stressed that they didn't feel threatened by Asssange at any time. One has said that she was asleep (half asleep?), then awake, then had consensual sex with him.

 

[uke2se]

It's interesting that you are happy present as fact something that you haven't verified.



Strangely, they did, or someone very close to them did.

The report was leaked.



Indeed. A conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

That article doesn't describe any perversion of justice. Perhaps you should read your sources before posting them.

However, there are people in this thread wanting to pervert justice. You are one of them.

 

[uke2se]

Straw man.

The women have stressed that they didn't feel threatened by Asssange at any time. One has said that she was half asleep, then awake, then had consensual sex with him.

Doesn't matter. Rape is rape.

Also, she said she was asleep while Assange had sex with her. Stop lying.

 

[barium]

Strangely, they did, or someone very close to them did.

Ironically enough the swedish constitution protects whistleblowers and prohibits our government from investigating the source of the leaks.

 

[eirik]

An interesting article of the evolution of Swedish rape law:

Sweden’s debate about ’consensual rape’

That's shocking. Surely every other country sees the legitimacy of force or the threat of force in a healthy sexual relationship.

And who hasn't taken the odd sexual advantage of a victim’s helpless state.

Those Swedes, crazy feminists they are!!11

 

[eirik]

An interesting article of the evolution of Swedish rape law:

Sweden’s debate about ’consensual rape’

And a blatantly lying one, claiming

The fact that the sex was consensual in all of the events is not disputed. One of the complainants, AA (Expressen, 21 August 2011), stated that both she and SW had consensual sex with Assange.

Well, if you actually read the Expressen article (Swedish, translated by google and me for your pleasure), you would know that's a blatant lie. Both women have accused him of un-consensual sex, also known as rape and molestation. No leftist blog can change that.

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/kvi...nte-iscensatta-av-pentagon-eller-nagon-annan/

The woman is in her 30s. On Friday, she was approached by the other woman, aged between 20 and 30 years. She stated that she had been raped by Assange.
- I immediately believed her statement, because I had an experience similar to her story, the woman says to Aftonbladet.

"We firmly stand by our statements"
Both women met Assange during his stay in Sweden. Both also believe that what first was about consensual sex, resulted in abuse. The women in their 30s chose to report Assange for sexual molestation, while the other went a step further.
- The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her. We firmly stand by our statements, the woman told Aftonbladet.

Rejects all conspiracy theories
She rejects reports that the first would not have wanted to notify Assange because they were afraid, saying that Assange is not violent.
She also dismisses all the conspiracy theories on the Internet, that the charges is trumped up by the Pentagon.
- The charges against Assange are of course not orchestrated by either the Pentagon or anybody else. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man with a warped view of womanhood and problems to take no for an answer, she says to Aftonbladet.

 

[BenBurch]

The current demands to extradite for an interview rather than just have the interview at a place of mutual convenience, which is common practice, already reeks of 'a dictatorial move'.

Don't forget, the US is the country that carries out 'extraordinary rendition', which is above the law.

But that is not the demand.

They mean to ARREST him.

Then INTERROGATE him.

Totally different from an interview.

Also there are court decisions that make interview like that done not on swedish soil a problem that would probably result in an acquittal. Assange knows that.

He also knows that he raped and possibly infected those two women.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sure they do. This is why the extradition-treaties are there in the first place. It's just that you don't here about it in the media, they focus on celebrity and the really gritty cases. Media being media.

And I hear on a daily basis in my line of work "why me, why not everybody else who commits these crimes?"

That's because today, everybody else is *you*, is a proper respond to such childish whining.



They cannot legally charge him before he is in Sweden, but what is your point here really? Is it just legalish sounding talking points to impress? Why would a formal charge be important in the first place?

They have a warrant for arrest and questioning, not merely questioning. It's not a tea party, it's a rape case.

Sure, but they say they only want him to answer questions for now.

 

[a_unique_person]

According to this, the paranoia is justified.

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is still gunning for Julian Assange, according to Foreign Affairs Department documents obtained by The Saturday Age.
The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information laws, show Australia's diplomatic service takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year".
The embassy noted media reports that a US federal grand jury had been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to pursue the WikiLeaks case and that US government officials "cannot lawfully confirm to us the existence of the grand jury".
Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.
Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.
The cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high-level US advice on "the direction and likely outcome of the investigation" and "reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange".
The question of advance warning of any prosecution or extradition moves was previously raised by Australian diplomats in December 2010.
American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".
Large sections of the cables have been redacted on national security grounds, including parts of reports on the open, pre-court martial proceedings of US Army Private Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked a vast quantity of classified information to WikiLeaks. Australian embassy representatives have attended all of Private Manning's pre-trial hearings.
Australian diplomats have highlighted the prosecution's reference to "several connections between Manning and WikiLeaks which would form the basis of a conspiracy charge" and evidence that the investigation has targeted the "founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks" for espionage.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/u...bles-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz24NGGzhq4

 

[uke2se]

According to this, the paranoia is justified.

You will note, of course, that none of this concerns an extradition to Sweden, nor do the "Australian Diplomats" say anything about an extradition to the US being facilitaded by a prior extradition to Sweden. Thus, this article does not claim Assange is justified in refusing to hand himself over to Swedish justice.

Or you might not note that, considering you have yet to admit how utterly wrong you have been earlier.

 

[a_unique_person]

According to this rape case in Australia by an Indian national who fled Australia back to India.

New Delhi, May 20 (IANS) A court here has asked the central government to extradite an Indian national to Australia to face trial in a rape case.

Jaswinder Singh Mutta has been charged with raping a girl in Australia's Victoria state in 2010.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Amit Bansal Friday asked the government to extradite Mutta after the accused told the court that he was ready to face trial in Australia.

Mutta voluntarily stated to the court that he had no objection if he was being extradited.

"I hereby recommend to Union of India the extradition of the fugitive criminal Jaswinder Singh Mutta to the requesting state i.e. Australia," said Bansal.

The order came after government, through its counsel Naveen Kumar Matta, approached the court and placed a letter written by Australian High Commission to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).

The Australian High Commission, in its letter dated Aug 10, 2011, had urged the ministry to extradite Mutta.

The high commission had stated that Mutta had been charged with rape, an offence that is punishable with up to 25 years in jail.

So he was charged for the rape, then extradited.

http://news.taaza.com/news/951707-extradite-rape-accused-to-australia-indian-government-told.html

 

[uke2se]

Sure, but they say they only want him to answer questions for now.

They want him to answer questions. The outcome of the interview determines if he is to be arrested or not. It's a legal formality in the Swedish judiciary system. It needs to take place on Swedish soil.

 

[uke2se]

According to this rape case in Australia by an Indian national who fled Australia back to India.



So he was charged for the rape, then extradited.

http://news.taaza.com/news/951707-extradite-rape-accused-to-australia-indian-government-told.html

Could you at least attempt to read our posts?