Julian Assange, to hand himself over?

[BruceVC]

http://www.thelocal.se/20140818/julian-assange-may-hand-himself-in-police

 

It looks like this saga is finally over. After hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the last 2 years Julian Assange due to health reasons may be forced to leave and face arrest.

 

Its about time, he made a mockery of the Internet and decided he would be the  person who would bring to our attention all the private diplomatic cables from USA diplomats, irrespective if they put peoples lives at risk. Since when did he become the judge and jury of what the public should see? There is a reason we have confidential communications between countries.

 

Also he needs to face those rape chargers in Sweden.

 

 

 

[Bryy]

Also he needs to face those rape chargers in Sweden.

... what?

[BruceVC]

 

Also he needs to face those rape chargers in Sweden.

... what?

 

 

 

Also he needs to face those rape chargers in Sweden.

... what?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

 

Yeah, he has real charges to face in Sweden and was fighting extradition

[BruceVC]

Assange is about to make a live news conference before he hands himself over, this will be interesting

[Walsingham]

I think it's absolutely vital to draw a solid line between the wikileaks business and the rape charges.

 

The rape charges are just that. No-one should be able to dodge them by playing a political card.

 

If you want to discuss the wikileaks thing, well frankly we already have.

[Agiel]

I think it's absolutely vital to draw a solid line between the wikileaks business and the rape charges.

 

The rape charges are just that. No-one should be able to dodge them by playing a political card.

 

If you want to discuss the wikileaks thing, well frankly we already have.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

I love Roman Polanski's movies*. I also believe that the fact that he was a damn fine filmmaker doesn't absolve him of his "indiscretions" and his efforts to flee from justice.

 

*Do not mistake this comparison for admiration for Assange, just know that I have complex views on the matter.

[Gorgon]

Clearly he thought the charges were part of a conspiracy against him, and given the active interest from a whole lot of intelligence agencies that he is likely to have recieved who could blame him. It's like that saying 'It's not paranoia if they are really after you'. 

 

Did he do this to himself or was he successfully sidetracked and discredited through other agency. I'm pretty confident in the quality and impartiality of the Swedish courts. He will get a fair shake there. 

[Nepenthe]

I think it's absolutely vital to draw a solid line between the wikileaks business and the rape charges.

Only if you assume the two are unconnected.

[Bester]

The rape charges are just that. No-one should be able to dodge them by playing a political card.

 

 

See, there's a gigantic difference between what all of us normal people mean by "rape" and what Swedes mean by "rape". I believe the exact charge is called "sex by surprise", not rape. You wanna know what it is?

 

Here's what happened. Assange arrived in Sweden for a seminar and arranged to stay at an apartment belonging to the event organizer, who is now the primary complainant. According to the police report, she and Assange had consensual sex and at some point, the condom broke. She got very upset about it. The two were seen the next day at the seminar and nothing appeared amiss.

 

Now, another woman, a photographer, went to the seminar as well and ended up having dinner with Assange. Then she went home and he went back to the event organizer chick's appartment. Two days later, the photographer chick invited him to her apartment. She paid for the train ticket to get him there. She complained to the police that during the train ride, he paid more attention to his computer rather than to her, and by the time they got to her apartment, the passion and excitement had disappeared. They however ended up having sex nonetheless few times and apparently Assange either took off his condom at some point or it slipped off. Anyway, according to the woman, she sort of protested when she saw that there was no condom, but he didn't do anything about it.

Anyway, two weeks later both women went to the police and filed a joint complaint. Why two weeks later? Was he supposed to call, but never did?

 

In Sweden they have a very wide range definition of sexual assault and rape. I think this would be another example of the Swedish man being totally emasculated by the evermore female dominant Swedish society. They claim in Sweden that consensual sex becomes non-consensual when the man is no longer using a condom.

 

It's obviously not for me to say whether this law is even remotely rational (it's not), but how do you even prove such a thing? The problem is that in Sweden you don't require proofs. The man is assumed to have committed the crime, there is little to no presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases in Swedish law practice and Swedish feminists have been demanding a complete and official abolition of presumption of innocence lately, which is practically what they have now anyway.

I mean do we really want to extradite people to countries that shit on presumption of innocence, one of our best inventions of all times? And do we want to extradite people to a country of batshit crazy feminists?

For all we know, those women might have gotten pissed at Assange because they found out he'd been sleeping with both of them, which is absolutely not a crime. Or the condom might have indeed broken for the first chick and slipped for the second. But we'll never know because there is no proof. Which apparently is not a problem to filing charges of rape and denying bail to Assange. Can sex be rape if it's consensual? Semen touching the woman during consensual sex is a mere accident, a natural thing to expect sometimes, or a serious crime?

 

Is Assange guilty?

Edited August 18, 2014 by Bester

[Nepenthe]

Last time I looked, he hasn't been charged with anything (well, not in Sweden, anyway) and is just "wanted for questioning". Of course, since they can't use the European arrest warrant on him for a second time in the same crime, the difference is mostly academic, since it's a practical certainty he'll be jailed pending trial.

 

The stuff I find odd is that 1) a local prosecutor, under whose authority these cases usually fall, had already decided that there wasn't sufficient cause to pursue the case, but she was overruled by the national-level "Director of Prosecution"* 2) The Swedes insistence that, when Assange has not been charged with any crime, he should still be extradited vs. have his statement taken by local police (which the EU system also provides for).

 

While there is necessarily no sinister conspiracy, I think it's safe to assume that at least Assange's "celebrity status" due to Wikileaks is putting him in a different position from the Average Guy facing similar suspicions. Thus, I see no point in separating the two aspects of the case.

 

In general, consensual sex becoming rape due to withdrawal of consent is hardly a joke and, for those involved in BDSM, a rather important point.

 

* sure, this does happen, but unless our Swedish cousins are remarkably more efficient than we are, the 10-day time frame between the original decision and its reversal is about... 10-20 times as fast as the usual rate these things happen at?

[HoonDing]

Never trust a man who looks like a villain in a straight-to-video Steven Seagal movie.

[Bester]

Last time I looked, he hasn't been charged with anything (well, not in Sweden, anyway) and is just "wanted for questioning". Of course, since they can't use the European arrest warrant on him for a second time in the same crime, the difference is mostly academic, since it's a practical certainty he'll be jailed pending trial.

 

The stuff I find odd is that 1) a local prosecutor, under whose authority these cases usually fall, had already decided that there wasn't sufficient cause to pursue the case, but she was overruled by the national-level "Director of Prosecution"* 2) The Swedes insistence that, when Assange has not been charged with any crime, he should still be extradited vs. have his statement taken by local police (which the EU system also provides for).

 

While there is necessarily no sinister conspiracy, I think it's safe to assume that at least Assange's "celebrity status" due to Wikileaks is putting him in a different position from the Average Guy facing similar suspicions. Thus, I see no point in separating the two aspects of the case.

 

In general, consensual sex becoming rape due to withdrawal of consent is hardly a joke and, for those involved in BDSM, a rather important point.

 

* sure, this does happen, but unless our Swedish cousins are remarkably more efficient than we are, the 10-day time frame between the original decision and its reversal is about... 10-20 times as fast as the usual rate these things happen at?

 

Oh, those chicks didn't say they asked him to stop or anything. Maybe the second one, but she's been vague about it. Definitely not the first one, who says that the condom broke. In sex you usually find out that the condom broke after you pull out and notice that it's a mess. So she couldn't have been forced to have sex after the condom broke, she just said she was very upset when she found out that it broke, which was most likely after sex. Plus, after that sex they kept living in the same apartment and went to the seminar together and were seeing together and everything was fine.

 

The second chick had so much consent that she paid for his train ticket and they had sex several times. If that's not consent, I don't know what is. In all honesty, I can't call her a victim of rape EVEN IF HE HADN'T STOPPED HAVING SEX WITH HER AFTER THE CONDOM SLIPPED. She says "she protested", but we don't know how much. Was she like "oh no, the condom broke, now we have to stop" and he was like "nah, don't worry about it", or was it like "PLEASE STOP, YOU'RE RAPING ME", and him being "SHUT UP, BIATCH!"?

Considering that there had been absolutely no struggle and the amount of consent she previously demonstrated, I think it definitely wasn't the latter.

And then the two-week wait, and the joint complaint?

 

And did I mention that there's no proof of even those ridiculous stories of condom slippage and breakage? Those allegations can't even be proven by anything. For me, anything that isn't proven - it's lies. And so it also is for any normal court of law. And anything that hasn't been proven in a court of law is dirty slander. He obviously didn't do what they're charging him with.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Bester

[Rostere]

Personally I don't know whether Assange is guilty or not, but the way the case has been handled is clearly an utter farce. They want him for extradition, that is all...

 

In Sweden they have a very wide range definition of sexual assault and rape. I think this would be another example of the Swedish man being totally emasculated by the evermore female dominant Swedish society. They claim in Sweden that consensual sex becomes non-consensual when the man is no longer using a condom.

It's obviously not for me to say whether this law is even remotely rational (it's not), but how do you even prove such a thing? The problem is that in Sweden you don't require proofs. The man is assumed to have committed the crime, there is little to no presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases in Swedish law practice and Swedish feminists have been demanding a complete and official abolition of presumption of innocence lately, which is practically what they have now anyway.

 

You know, it's hard to take you seriously when you are trolling so hard... You better just stay quiet when you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Bester, how do you know so much?

[BruceVC]

What I am hoping for is that Assange gets send to Sweden and while he is facing trial there the USA submits extradition papers. Then he can address the real charges against him, the fact he allowed confidential information to be made available to the general public through Wikileaks.  And lets not deny why he did this, he had a personal issue with the USA and went out his way to cause them as much embarrassment and harm as possible based on the information he had

[Bester]

What I am hoping for is that Assange gets send to Sweden and while he is facing trial there the USA submits extradition papers. Then he can address the real charges against him, the fact he allowed confidential information to be made available to the general public through Wikileaks.  And lets not deny why he did this, he had a personal issue with the USA and went out his way to cause them as much embarrassment and harm as possible based on the information he had

So that's what it's about then, not the rape charges huh.So much for that.

 

And what harm did he cause with his leaks to the US exactly? I mean we can't exactly count Assange's leaks all over american politicians faces as harm, can we? McCain's chestnuts behind his cheeks didn't grow as a result of him getting leaks all over his face and him deciding to save some for later, did they?

 

Are we discussing the first wave of leaks that showed the inhuman treatment and killings of Iraqi civilians? Saying that it harmed the US is like saying that he published a video of a crime and the video harmed the criminal.

 

Or are we discussing the second wave of leaks in which all we see is politicians shit talking each other in tweets and emails? Wow, it turns out that the Egyptian president talked shit behind Iran's president's back! It turns out the everyone thinks the Israelis are stubborn and bullheaded. It turns out that Obama wears pink trousers at home.

 

Cite a single harm that came to the United States as a country as a result of the second wave of the leaks. A single sanction towards the US from the rest of the world or a single political agreement signing falling through.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Bester

[Zoraptor]

The stuff I find odd is that 1) a local prosecutor, under whose authority these cases usually fall, had already decided that there wasn't sufficient cause to pursue the case, but she was overruled by the national-level "Director of Prosecution"* 2) The Swedes insistence that, when Assange has not been charged with any crime, he should still be extradited vs. have his statement taken by local police (which the EU system also provides for).

 

There was a bit more unusual stuff as well, the number of leaks from the case were absolutely unprecedented (four separate ones iirc, none traced) and included things like leaking the alleged victims' statements- utterly unconscionable, and the defence did not have them to leak it must have been a police/ prosecutor side leak- as well as Assange's identity and statements. Assange was also allowed to leave Sweden then retroactively made subject to extradition when the prosecutor changed.

 

Meh, Assange is old news anyway, and has generated no real interest in the past two years. Selfish it may be but I'm far more interested in Kim Dotcom and whether he'll succeed in bringing our government down at this point.

[kgambit]

 

 

 

There was a bit more unusual stuff as well, the number of leaks from the case were absolutely unprecedented (

 

 

 

 

So information leaks are only justified when you or Assange decide they are?  Thanks for clearing that up. 

[Malcador]

People still miffed at Assange, I see.

[Meshugger]

He guy pretty much pissed off all the leaders of the western world, so there will be a lot of political pressure to see the guy hanged.

 

But I for one, hope for more these leaks, no matter what happens to Assange. All those tears of crying politicians, beaurocrats and diplomats fuels my life force.

[Zoraptor]

So information leaks are only justified when you or Assange decide they are?  Thanks for clearing that up. 

 

 

Oh, it certainly wasn't without irony that the leaker got leaked, that's for sure.

 

The argument is of course that there is no 'public good'/ need to know justification for those particular leaks, as the wikileaks leaks were 'historic' and 'public/ governmental' rather than 'current' and 'private'- rules of confidentiality in judicial cases also aren't there just to protect the alleged perpetrator from having their reputation unfairly impugned by accusations that potentially turn out to be unsupported, but also to protect the alleged victims; and to prevent jury influence, where relevant (not here, iirc). Assange's alleged victims were identified pretty quickly once he had been identified, and I'd imagine they did not want to be. I'd also imagine they wouldn't want their statements leaked, much as Assange wouldn't.

 

But in any case support for leaks is based on circumstance and personal opinion, always is. If you think that secrecy/ privacy concerns outweigh public right to know you oppose that specific leak, if the reverse you support it.

[BruceVC]

 

What I am hoping for is that Assange gets send to Sweden and while he is facing trial there the USA submits extradition papers. Then he can address the real charges against him, the fact he allowed confidential information to be made available to the general public through Wikileaks.  And lets not deny why he did this, he had a personal issue with the USA and went out his way to cause them as much embarrassment and harm as possible based on the information he had

So that's what it's about then, not the rape charges huh.So much for that.

 

And what harm did he cause with his leaks to the US exactly? I mean we can't exactly count Assange's leaks all over american politicians faces as harm, can we? McCain's chestnuts behind his cheeks didn't grow as a result of him getting leaks all over his face and him deciding to save some for later, did they?

 

Are we discussing the first wave of leaks that showed the inhuman treatment and killings of Iraqi civilians? Saying that it harmed the US is like saying that he published a video of a crime and the video harmed the criminal.

 

Or are we discussing the second wave of leaks in which all we see is politicians **** talking each other in tweets and emails? Wow, it turns out that the Egyptian president talked **** behind Iran's president's back! It turns out the everyone thinks the Israelis are stubborn and bullheaded. It turns out that Obama wears pink trousers at home.

 

Cite a single harm that came to the United States as a country as a result of the second wave of the leaks. A single sanction towards the US from the rest of the world or a single political agreement signing falling through.

 

 

The argument "well you cant say how much damage was done by Wikileaks " is irrelevant to the charges Assange should face in the USA because we will never be able to quantify how much damage was done in the diplomatic arena between various countries. We know it caused certain denials and embarrassment throughout the world

 

The issue I have with Wikileaks is much simpler. Every single country in the world has confidential and secretive communications between its embassies and its home  country. Now either you believe that a country is entitled to confidentiality around this information or you believe they don't. Assange took it on himself to not only make public this information but he was mostly selective around the country he decided to target, the USA

 

I have no sympathy for him, he manipulated many people into thinking that this was " a crusade to exposure the great lies in the world " when in  fact this was his attempt to undermine the USA and the result of that was undermining most of the Western world as diplomatic cables are not suppose to be made available to the general public.

[Bester]

I have no sympathy for him, he manipulated many people into thinking that this was " a crusade to exposure the great lies in the world " when in  fact this was his attempt to undermine the USA and the result of that was undermining most of the Western world as diplomatic cables are not suppose to be made available to the general public.

 

 

You failed to answer my previous question and here's already a completely new and fresh load of bullcrap.

 

undermine

/ʌndəˈmʌɪn/

verb

to lessen the effectiveness, power, or ability of, especially gradually or insidiously.

 

So if the leaks undermined the US, show me an instance where the political effectiveness, power or ability of the US has been lessened. If you can't provide single result of that 'undermining' right off the bat, then I must conclude that your posts are akin to babbling of a parrot who mindlessly repeats things he's heard.

 

 

 

is irrelevant to the charges Assange should face in the USA

Assange SHOULD face charges in the US? By what law???

 

To be honest, I'm losing all respect for you right now. You looked like a person if not of own convictions, then at least of some integrity before, because you stood firmly on beliefs that law is above morals and personal reasonings. I can't say it's humane or adequate, but at least it shows some integrity. And now, when this approach stopped being convenient for you, you've reversed your position 180 degrees like it was nothing?? Now you're saying that Assange should go to prison even if there is no law that says he should???

 

First of all, the leaks concerned many countries, so where is your obsession with the US stemming from? More parroting?

Secondly, the US has no business concerning itself with foreign citizens' actions on foreign soil. It's like saying let's extradite you to the United Emirates for having had homosexual sex with a man, because that's the law in the UE. It doesn't work like that.

And thirdly, even if you're a huge nationalist fanboy of the United States and think they should have more rights than other countries, you should know that leaking is protected by America's First Amendment. Even their own laws don't allow them to charge Assange with anything.

And fourthly, you think videos of atrocities is an undermining of the US???

 

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your fanatical US apologetics. First you celebrate fascism in Ukraine and side with the guys who overthrow the government and then shell and throw air strikes on civilian population. Then you're unhappy about the leakage of videos that revealed how American chopper pilots shot in cold blood women and children on the ground, calling to put in prison for life the guy who revealed it. It's a trend with you, I see. You're a 'liberal' fascist, licking America's feet like a good dog. I can't see people celebrating atrocities, it's bad for my blood pressure. You'll make a very well deserved addition to my ignore list.

[Shallow]

All the various horrible stuff that was leaked shows that said governments aren't mature enough to have privacy. Wikileaks proved that it has a righht to exist by being able to find real troublesome stuff to leak.

[Walsingham]

 

The rape charges are just that. No-one should be able to dodge them by playing a political card.

 

 

See, there's a gigantic difference between what all of us normal people mean by "rape" and what Swedes mean by "rape". I believe the exact charge is called "sex by surprise", not rape. You wanna know what it is?

 

 

Why would you assume I don't know.

 

The key point is "what the Swedes mean"

 

Democratic laws are precisely this. The people made the law he's being tried under. Although if I may contradict my earlier statement I can see how Julian Assange would have trouble with the concept of obeying laws he disagrees with.