Moderated: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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:

Originally Posted by JA

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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

But there wasn't consensual sex without a condom.

Depends on how you interpret the evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

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]

Originally Posted by theprestige

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]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

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]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

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.

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

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]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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.

Originally Posted by swedish prosecution authority

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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]

Originally Posted by Silhouette

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

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.
(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.

So you have a legal system where a top level department administrator gets involved in a petty crime? Sorry, that's bizarre.

As for the case being assigned, I've not seen anything saying this particular woman was 'assigned' the case. All the reports I saw said she inserted herself.

The links in your post do not show that this prosecutor was 'assigned' the case. Being from Sweden, I assume you have such a link? If it's in Swedish, Google should be able to translate well enough.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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??

This has been addressed. At the time the possible malicious prosecution had not begun.

If JA knows the women are lying (I'm not saying there is any certainty who is lying here, though I have an opinion) then it is reasonable for him to think some plotting is going on with the accusations being used to carry the plot out.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

....
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.

Just so it's clear, I think the interpretation of the evidence suggests the women had consensual sex with JA. I am not basing my conclusion because I think JA is a great guy. I will say it again, he seems creepy.

My favorable opinion of Wikileaks and those involved in it is a separate issue. I am capable of liking what JA did in the past with Wikileaks while being somewhat disgusted with him as a person.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Just so it's clear,I think the interpretation of the evidence suggests the women had consensual sex with JA.

"Just so it's clear"? I'm pretty sure we all know what your interpretation is. And like I said, your interpreation doesn't surprise me.

Quote:

I am not basing my conclusion because I think JA is a great guy. I will say it again, he seems creepy.

What makes him seem creepy to you? Not having consensual sex, obviously. And not participating in the Wikileaks project, obviously.

So why on earth would you say he seems creepy? Do you have any evidence at all that he's ever actually acted like a creep?

Quote:

My favorable opinion of Wikileaks and those involved in it is a separate issue. I am capable of liking what JA did in the past with Wikileaks while being somewhat disgusted with him as a person.

Of course.

What has he done, "as a person", that disgusts you "somewhat"?

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So you have a legal system where a top level department administrator gets involved in a petty crime? Sorry, that's bizarre.

No, we have a system where there are prosecutors that handle all types of crimes, and then three specialized teams that handle special situations as described in my post above. One of those specialized situation is when a prosecution decision is appealed. It is then routed to the "development center", and the senior prosecutor there is the person with the most knowledge and experience in handling cases that relate to their special area of law.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

As for the case being assigned, I've not seen anything saying this particular woman was 'assigned' the case. All the reports I saw said she inserted herself.

The links in your post do not show that this prosecutor was 'assigned' the case. Being from Sweden, I assume you have such a link? If it's in Swedish, Google should be able to translate well enough.

The appeal was assigned to her department, since they are designed to handle appeals, and she is the senior prosecutor for sexual crimes. What is hard to understand about that?

Isn't it obvious that you in an appeals situation will use a person with more experience on the job?

I have never seen any reports that describe the internal work flow in that department. I believe that I have shown with publicly available information (some of it even in English) that it would be illogical for the appeal to end up anywhere else but in her department, and I have shown that she is the senior prosecutor there.

If you want to insist that she is only an "high level administrator", or that she "inserted herself" into this, you have to show reliable sources that describe how role descriptions were circumvented. I have not seen anything like that, I have only seen people stating it with no facts to back it up. I'm looking forward to you showing facts behind your statements.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

"Just so it's clear"? I'm pretty sure we all know what your interpretation is. And like I said, your interpreation doesn't surprise me.

Your comment suggests you don't understand which part of your post I was objecting to/clarifying my position on.

There is a difference in motivation between thinking the women had buyer's remorse and taking a position because it favors JA.

Originally Posted by theprestige

What makes him seem creepy to you? Not having consensual sex, obviously. And not participating in the Wikileaks project, obviously.

So why on earth would you say he seems creepy to you? Do you have any evidence at all that he's ever actually acted like a creep?

What has he done, "as a person", that disgusts you "somewhat"?

How he appears in interviews, he wrote some pretty weird emails to a girl, he seems to have ego issues, and he's just not a guy I would ever want to have sex with. It adds up to probably creepy. I couldn't say for sure without meeting him in person.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

No, we have a system where there are prosecutors that handle all types of crimes, and then three specialized teams that handle special situations as described in my post above. One of those specialized situation is when a prosecution decision is appealed. It is then routed to the "development center", and the senior prosecutor there is the person with the most knowledge and experience in handling cases that relate to their special area of law.
The appeal was assigned to her department, since they are designed to handle appeals, and she is the senior prosecutor for sexual crimes. What is hard to understand about that?

Isn't it obvious that you in an appeals situation will use a person with more experience on the job?

I have never seen any reports that describe the internal work flow in that department. I believe that I have shown with publicly available information (some of it even in English) that it would be illogical for the appeal to end up anywhere else but in her department, and I have shown that she is the senior prosecutor there.

If you want to insist that she is only an "high level administrator", or that she "inserted herself" into this, you have to show reliable sources that describe how role descriptions were circumvented. I have not seen anything like that, I have only seen people stating it with no facts to back it up. I'm looking forward to you showing facts behind your statements.

I don't see a link. I'd like to take your word for this, but what I've read about the case, all the links at the beginning of the thread, contradict your claim here.

I don't even recall the women actively 'appealed' the fact the first prosecutor opted not to pursue the case.

As for not seeing anything supporting the claim she injected herself into the case, see the first dozen pages of this discussion. Some links suggested she had political aspirations, others said she didn't. Political aspirations made sense. Other motives didn't. There wasn't any discussion I recall that she was 'assigned' the case. This is the first I heard such a claim.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't see a link. I'd like to take your word for this, but what I've read about the case, all the links at the beginning of the thread, contradict your claim here.

I don't even recall the women actively 'appealed' the fact the first prosecutor opted not to pursue the case.

It's in (among other places) in the agreed facts I linked to (http://www.scribd.com/swedenversusas...s-Assange-Case) that is signed by JAs legal team.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

As for not seeing anything supporting the claim she injected herself into the case, see the first dozen pages of this discussion. Some links suggested she had political aspirations, others said she didn't. Political aspirations made sense. Other motives didn't. There wasn't any discussion I recall that she was 'assigned' the case. This is the first I heard such a claim.

Yes, I know there are people suggesting she had political aspirations, but a person suggesting it does not make it true. Again, the information I've set out is available on the Swedish prosecution authorities home page and in the agreed facts on the case. I think that makes a pretty strong case for it being true, and would like to see much more details on why it's wrong before I dismiss it, something I haven't seen from any of the links earlier in the thread.

[Korren]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Political aspirations made sense.

No, they didn't. The Swedish political system doesn't work that way -- there's no political "career path" from an office as prosecutor.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This has been addressed. At the time the possible malicious prosecution had not begun.

If JA knows the women are lying (I'm not saying there is any certainty who is lying here, though I have an opinion) then it is reasonable for him to think some plotting is going on with the accusations being used to carry the plot out.

It's completely irrelevant to the current investigation. Being accused of rape doesn't make it any easier to disappear Assange, or extradite him legally to the USA.

It's obvious he just pulled that out of his rear in a desperate attempt to avoid being investigated for rape.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by alex04

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

You enter another country, you become subject to their laws.

He entered Sweden with open eyes.

Not Sweden's fault if you don't like the laws. Their right to have them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

It's in (among other places) in the agreed facts I linked to (http://www.scribd.com/swedenversusas...s-Assange-Case) that is signed by JAs legal team.

You need to point to the quote. I see nothing in your link that says the prosecutor was 'assigned' the case initially after a prior prosecutor dropped it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's completely irrelevant to the current investigation. Being accused of rape doesn't make it any easier to disappear Assange, or extradite him legally to the USA.

It's obvious he just pulled that out of his rear in a desperate attempt to avoid being investigated for rape.

A lot of people disagree with you. You have your view, I have mine.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Korren

No, they didn't. The Swedish political system doesn't work that way -- there's no political "career path" from an office as prosecutor.

The term "political gain" in this context is not limited to elected office. She could have the goal of simply basking in the fame and that would still mean she got involved in the case only because of JA's notoriety.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

....

Not Sweden's fault if you don't like the laws. Their right to have them.

This presumes a malicious prosecution is not a possible occurrence.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You need to point to the quote. I see nothing in your link that says the prosecutor was 'assigned' the case initially after a prior prosecutor dropped it.

No, that is correct. I was talking about the "appeal part". This is what it says on page 4:

Quote:

Meanwhile, on 27thAugust 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealedthe Chief Prosecutor’s decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Goteborg. On 1st September 2010 , that prosecutor (Marianne Ny) decided that:
i. The Preliminary Investigation in respect of file K246314-10[SW] would be resumed, under the offence of ‘rape’.
ii. The preliminary investigation into K246336-10 [AA] would beexpanded to include all the conduct in the complaint

And as I have shown in previous posts, her group is the designated recipient for all prosecution-related appeals for sex-crimes, and as it says in this quote she's the senior prosecutor in that group.

So I can't see that there's anything here that points to her "inserting herself" into the case - instead it actually specifically says that the case was appealed to her, as it should according to the way the prosecution authority is set up.

Now you can of course still claim malicious prosecution, but can we drop the "inserted herself" part?

[Jaxe]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Now you can of course still claim malicious prosecution, but can we drop the "inserted herself" part?

Actually she was asked by Claes Borgström to reopen the case.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

...

Now you can of course still claim malicious prosecution, but can we drop the "inserted herself" part?

According to this look at the same document:

Quote:

In Swedish Supreme Court document, Swedish government admits that it was the state, not the women, who initiated sex investigations into Assange.

Court document explains that how the investigation was dropped by Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm, Eva Pinne...

...However then AA and SW appealed to a prosecutor in Goteborg, who opened the case for sex investigation under rape offense after intervention by a swedish politician

I'll have to look into the details a tad more before I agree the inserted herself can be dismissed. You can take a quote out of context and miss some of the details.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Jaxe

Actually she was asked by Claes Borgström to reopen the case.

Like this detail, for example. ^

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Jaxe

Actually she was asked by Claes Borgström to reopen the case.

Yes, exactly what I quoted above - Claes Borgström (as counsel for the two women) appealed the earlier decision not to continue the investigation. And as I have shown, the Gothenburg development center is the designation recipient for that appeal, and she is the senior prosecutor there.

If you would expect anything else to happen if a counsel appeals on a sex case, please describe that.