[Moderated] Julian Assange: rapist or not? - Page 4

I Ratant · 7th December 2010, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It seems that Swedish rape law is a bit different. Perhaps this article will shed some light:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/d...a&type=article

The prosecuter has dismissed suggestions that the charges are politically motivated.

.
Doesn't mean the charges aren't.
Prosecutors are political animals.
High profile wins help their political futures.

BenBurch · 7th December 2010, 04:39 PM

Of course, ANY charges now will be CLAIMED to be politically-motivated whether they are or not.

And whatever the motivation of the charges themselves, it is not surprising that other governments are very willing to move along a warrant that would otherwise languish until the person presented himself at a border.

PhantomWolf · 7th December 2010, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Of course, ANY charges now will be CLAIMED to be politically-motivated whether they are or not.

And whatever the motivation of the charges themselves, it is not surprising that other governments are very willing to move along a warrant that would otherwise languish until the person presented himself at a border.

Except that he presented himself at a police station. They didn't have a lot of options at that point.

Puppycow · 7th December 2010, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It seems that Swedish rape law is a bit different. Perhaps this article will shed some light:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/d...a&type=article

The prosecuter has dismissed suggestions that the charges are politically motivated.

I posted that from my droid and it's a mobile link, but here is the desktop version.

I just want to extract the legal issues from the article, if I may:

Quote:

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish prosecutors, said the first involved complainant A, who said she was the victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.
. . .
Unlike the UK, Swedish rape law is not based on consent but on the aforementioned concept of sexual integrity. There are a number of possible offences against this integrity. Those that involve both penetration and either physical force or a threat of some illegal act, such as violence, are classified as rape. So are assaults on people who are helpless at the time, either as a result of intoxication or severe mental disturbance. The degree of physical force involved need only be very small. It can be enough merely to move the victim's legs apart, according to Gunilla Berglund, at the Swedish ministry of justice. Rape carries a sentence of between two and six years; aggravated rape a sentence of four to 10 years.

Furthermore, this:

Originally Posted by egslim

It gets better, with this article from Crikey
The women are named there, it seems 'Woman A' is Ardin and 'Woman B' is Wilén.

From a barrister who represented Assange, is a blatant example of character assassination against the victims. The purpose is to name them, shame them and discredit them. In the Guardian and other papers, they are only referred to as 'Woman A' and 'Woman B'.

Finally, putting aside the merits or the case, does anyone have any hard evidence that the charges are politically motivated?

PhantomWolf · 7th December 2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep

If the facts support this allegation, then I suspect this would be considered rape in most western countries.

BenBurch · 7th December 2010, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If the facts support this allegation, then I suspect this would be considered rape in most western countries.

Oh yes it would.

little grey rabbit · 7th December 2010, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If the facts support this allegation, then I suspect this would be considered rape in most western countries.

According to the Guardian

Quote:

The following day, the woman attended and helped facilitate the event, at which Miss W was also present. According to her police interview, Miss W accompanied the Australian and some male guests to lunch at which he flirted with her; afterwards the pair went to the cinema, where she told police she had performed oral sex on him. They slept together that night, using a condom, and again the following morning, when both parties appear to agree that a condom was not used, after which Assange left.

Its going to be an entertaining court case that is for sure.

Travis · 7th December 2010, 11:06 PM

She performed oral sex on him in the theater?

That's so tacky.

What's this about her being asleep then?

Andrew Wiggin · 8th December 2010, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

He wasn't ordered to submit to STD testing. He was asked, and he refused. That doesn't make him a rapist*, true, but it hardly makes him an upstanding member of society, either.

From what I understand, she wasn't able to get in touch with him, as he had his cell phone turned off. She asked around to see if anyone else knew where he could be found or contacted, and in the process found out she wasn't the only one he'd had relations with. By the time she got in touch with him, it was the weekend and no clinics were open. Not something he did deliberately to be an ass. Just bad timing. In the meantime, she and the other woman had gone to the police, though they say it was not with the intent of getting him in trouble... (I find that dubious. Going to the police and making a statement is not a good way to avoid getting people into trouble)

Puppycow · 8th December 2010, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

What's this about her being asleep then?

That's what the charge says. Maybe she's a heavy sleeper, or maybe she was really intoxicated. Or maybe she woke up at some point after he began to initiate sex.

lionking · 8th December 2010, 12:18 AM

No he's not a rapist. But with Pilger and Chomsky supporting him, I may change my mind.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th December 2010, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

Do you have a link what Holder said about copyright infringement? Because thati s, well, the most ridiculous chare I heard thus far. According to US law, documents produced by the US government are not copyrighted!

No, sorry if I wasn't clear. That's not what I meant. Holder just said he was working on something to charge Assange with. I was using copyright as an example of the only law I could think of that would apply to someone outside the US who was given the material. I made it up. I wasn't saying Holder made the charge.

Receiving stolen property?

How does Assange differ from the NY Times? Proving one is news and one isn't would be darn hard given the blogosphere is considered a news source by many people.

You can't just make up a crime after the fact when someone does something that simply embarrasses the government. And I've not seen the evidence yet that anyone has been put in danger from the leaks.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th December 2010, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

You're right. We should never believe sluts who claim they were raped.

I take it you haven't read anything about this case.

Neither of these women ever said they were raped by Assange.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th December 2010, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

This is why prosecutors have the power to decide who not to prosecute.

No. This is what the Constitution says about freedom of the press.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th December 2010, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

....
This circus act is annoying.

Fred Phelps is way more annoying. Yet we tolerate that nonsense because no one in a position of power cares that much.

The point is, people should not be going to jail on trumped up charges because the government is annoyed. Either there is a law the guy broke, or there isn't. He didn't steal the documents as far as we know. And news organizations are not being prosecuted for publishing the same material.

Where is the evidence of people's lives being endangered?

You really don't care that people in the government can put people in jail on trumped up charges because said persons are political liabilities? I find that way more troublesome than any of the leaks I'm aware of so far.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th December 2010, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The more I hear the more I am sure that this has been totally set up, by Assange and his supporters. They couldn't have bought this sort of publicity.

Are you joking, or did you miss the part about the prosecutor with political ambitions reopening a case that was dropped because there was no there there? And no bail on a petty charge where the suspect turned himself in? Come on.

Here_to_learn · 8th December 2010, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Doesn't mean the charges aren't.
Prosecutors are political animals.
High profile wins help their political futures.

So how many swedish politicians are basing their political career on beeing former prosecutors? I assume you base your statement on experience of Swedish politics, and not of how it works in any other other countries.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th December 2010, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

...

The prosecuter has dismissed suggestions that the charges are politically motivated.

That's a joke.

So how is the guy responsible if he uses a condom that breaks? Did I miss that in the link?

And why would a somewhat famous guy, good looking, need to force himself on anyone? Both of these ladies said they only wanted Assange to get an STD test. Chances are they were disappointed to find out he wasn't in love. No charges of, "Hey this guy forced himself on me", were ever made as far as I can see.

The first prosecutor said there was not enough evidence for any charges. It is totally a trial by media second guessing, filling in the blanks (stuff they didn't know) with stuff that sells more news, and being willing partners to the character assassination the US government is waging by not doing their job as investigative journalists.

Here_to_learn · 8th December 2010, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It is totally a trial by media second guessing, filling in the blanks (stuff they didn't know) with stuff that sells more news, and being willing partners to the character assassination the US government is waging by not doing their job as investigative journalists.

As opposed to trial by Internet, basing opinion on rumors and blogposts based on other rumors.

David Allen Green (Jack of Kent) did tweet this about 13 hours ago:

Originally Posted by @davidallengreen

We have the arrest warrant and the charges as read out in court. Beyond that there is little to no info to base such strong views #Assange
about 13 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®

#Assange Am astonished just how many people have strong and detailed views at to law and facts based on *no* sources whatsoever.
about 13 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®

He has also linked to several blog posts, for example this one from ENEMIES OF REASON

Originally Posted by Enemies of reason

None of that, though, excuses Assange if he's guilty of what he's accused of. But at the moment it is "if". People's private lives are different from the actions of governments; individuals have the right to privacy and an expectation that these things should not be pored over in public. So if there is an investigation, a crime, accusations and so on, perhaps this is one instance where we don't have the right to know everything. We must wait and see what happens, and leave any assumptions aside.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th December 2010, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

So how many swedish politicians are basing their political career on beeing former prosecutors? I assume you base your statement on experience of Swedish politics, and not of how it works in any other other countries.

It is extremely common here for prosecutors to have political ambitions. The majority of Congresspersons and Senators in this country are lawyers by profession. They weren't all defense lawyers.

The Congressmen in my district, though a police chief and not a prosecutor, cites his claim to fame was catching the Green River Serial Murderer. (And truthfully, he did nothing to earn that claim and actually failed to stop the murderer for may years.)

Gary Ridgway^WP

Quote:

The most notable members of the task force were Robert Keppel and Dave Reichert, who periodically interviewed incarcerated serial killer Ted Bundy from 1984. Their interviews with Bundy were of little help in the Green River investigations but elicited confessions from Bundy on unsolved cases. Also contributing was John E. Douglas, who has since written much on the subject of the Green River Killer.
Ridgway was arrested in 1982 and 2001 on charges related to prostitution. He became a suspect in 1983 in the Green River killings. In 1984, Ridgway took and passed a polygraph test, and on April 7, 1987, police took hair and saliva samples from Ridgway.

Dave Reichert^WP

Quote:

Reichert was a leading member of the Green River Task Force, which was formed to track down the so-called "Green River Killer." DNA evidence eventually identified Gary Leon Ridgway as the Green River Killer in 2001.[6] Ridgway was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the Green River murders.[7]

Reichert refers to this qualification in every campaign.

Thomas E. Dewey^WP was another politician who launched his campaign on his fame as a prosecutor.

Quote:

Dewey rocketed to fame in 1935, when he was appointed special prosecutor in New York County

And even if not having political ambitions, lots of prosecutors desire the fame of prosecuting famous cases.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th December 2010, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

As opposed to trial by Internet, basing opinion on rumors and blogposts based on other rumors.

David Allen Green (Jack of Kent) did tweet this about 13 hours ago:

He has also linked to several blog posts, for example this one from ENEMIES OF REASON

One can sift through the chaff to get to the wheat on the Internet. It's not the Net that is the issue, it is using critical thinking to assess the validity of the sources.

Here_to_learn · 8th December 2010, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It is extremely common here for prosecutors to have political ambitions. The majority of Congresspersons and Senators in this country are lawyers by profession. They weren't all defense lawyers.

Yes, thank you.That is why I asked:

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

So how many swedish politicians are basing their political career on beeing former prosecutors? I assume you base your statement on experience of Swedish politics, and not of how it works in any other other countries.

My bolding.

Here_to_learn · 8th December 2010, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

One can sift through the chaff to get to the wheat on the Internet. It's not the Net that is the issue, it is using critical thinking to assess the validity of the sources.

Assuming that all facts are available on the Net. If not, the only conclusion you can come to using the Net as a source is "we don't know".

gumboot · 8th December 2010, 01:35 AM

Having read some of the information released, I'm inclined to think that in the first instance no crime was committed - it's a case of a woman trying to get revenge on a guy she feels cheated on her.

The second case, however, sounds like there's more to it. If he did, indeed, have sex with this woman the following morning while she was asleep, he's a rapist.

I'm curious as to what the "new evidence" is that led to the reopening of the case. If it was just one of the girls "remembering" some new detail, sounds like a sham. But it might not be, and I'm willing to wait and see.

I'm also inclined to think it's quite possible this whole thing is politically motived, but when I say that what I mean is I think the prosecutor might have taken up the case to further her career because it's high profile. I personally think the idea that the girls fabricated this whole thing (presumably in collusion with the Swedish Government and the US Government) to bring the guy in so he could be swept away to some CIA prison or whatever to be frankly laughable, and nothing short of an extremely paranoid conspiracy theory.

I think Assange might have an over-inflated idea of his own importance, to be honest. The US government won't be after him for these leaks, they're after the people that leaked the documents to him. Those people they can legitimately lock up and throw away the key.

a_unique_person · 8th December 2010, 01:39 AM

I am wondering why the focus on Assange, he is not wikileaks. If they jail him, remove all communication, the leaks will continue.

whatthebutlersaw · 8th December 2010, 01:49 AM

In defence of Skeptic Ginger's stand, although Swedish politics (and non-jury based legal system) are different from both US, UK and and Australian, there is scope to make a political career out of a legal one. This has happened before as I explained in my earlier post about Krister Van Der Kwast and Thomas Quick.

You don't get elected to positions like public prosecutor etc here, but it helps to have a high public profile, media presence and to belong to whichever party or coalition is in charge at a time when such a position is filled. The minister of justice in the former Social Democrat government, Thomas Bodström, built his career like that: faithful party member + high public profile and media presence + favoured by the market forces for protecting their interests = minister of justice post when the party is in power.

The difference is who makes the pick. And whaddayaknow, the people who make the pick like the kind of people who have the habit of quadrulabially inhale US derière.

whatthebutlersaw · 8th December 2010, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

I am wondering why the focus on Assange, he is not wikileaks. If they jail him, remove all communication, the leaks will continue.

To let everyone know that if they piss you off, you can **** them up and democracy will not protect them?

Here_to_learn · 8th December 2010, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw

I...there is scope to make a political career out of a legal one. This has happened before as I explained in my earlier post about Krister Van Der Kwast and Thomas Quick.

In what way has Krister Van Der Kwast had a political career?

Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw

You don't get elected to positions like public prosecutor etc here, but it helps to have a high public profile, media presence and to belong to whichever party or coalition is in charge at a time when such a position is filled. The minister of justice in the former Social Democrat government, Thomas Bodström, built his career like that: faithful party member + high public profile and media presence + favoured by the market forces for protecting their interests = minister of justice post when the party is in power.

Then I repeat my question to you - how many Swedish politician have based their political career on an earlier career as a prosecutor? Thomas Bodström has not been a prosecutor.

It's hardly surprising that having a high public profile helps in politics, but that doesn't mean that every prosecutor that handles a high-profile case does this to become a politician.

This is not a a case of "correlation does not imply causation", I can't even see the correlation.

Travis · 8th December 2010, 02:10 AM

How does Sweden generally handle "He said, She said" type court cases?

whatthebutlersaw · 8th December 2010, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

In what way has Krister Van Der Kwast had a political career?
Then I repeat my question to you - how many Swedish politician have based their political career on an earlier career as a prosecutor? Thomas Bodström has not been a prosecutor.

It's hardly surprising that having a high public profile helps in politics, but that doesn't mean that every prosecutor that handles a high-profile case does this to become a politician.

This is not a a case of "correlation does not imply causation", I can't even see the correlation.

After raising his profile van der Kwast was given the post of "Överåklagare" which approximates Chief Prosecutor. Before retirement, he served as "Länsåklagare" which in US terms would probably be something like State Prosecutor, or in UK terms, County Prosecutor. Those posts are filled politically. Not by election, but by nominating bodies that are selected by the party in charge.

That sounds like a career to me. But maybe you aim higher? You lookin' to sit on the right hand of god at judgement day or something?

Oh, I'm sorry - you didn't know that prosecutors are in the legal profession as well as lawyers. Well, they are. So now you know.

The fact that Bodström is a lawyer and not a prosecutor is neither here nor there, because technically he would have had the same - possibly better - chance of getting his post as a prosecutor.

And then, of course, there is the Swedish sinecur of "Länshövding" (County Chieftain - a kind of mayoral role with only symbolic value, but a nifty residency and a nice pay packet) which is often awarded high profile faithful party members once they are done doing actual work. Very often given to former county prosecutors or former ministers who reside in the area. It's basically a gold clad retirement with some ribbon cutting.

All these things are awarded through the party in charge of the county or the country. It does not go through the people. There is no election - politicians hand out these as awards for kissing ass.

Here_to_learn · 8th December 2010, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

How does Sweden generally handle "He said, She said" type court cases?

In general, probably not well...

I do not have a legal training, so this is just my impressions, but there has been debate in Sweden about strengthening the law specifically around consent.

Maybe other have better knowledge about this.

Here_to_learn · 8th December 2010, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw

After raising his profile van der Kwast was given the post of "Överåklagare" which approximates Chief Prosecutor. Before retirement, he served as "Länsåklagare" which in US terms would probably be something like State Prosecutor, or in UK terms, County Prosecutor. Those posts are filled politically. Not by election, but by nominating bodies that are selected by the party in charge.

That sounds like a career to me. But maybe you aim higher? You lookin' to sit on the right hand of god at judgement day or something?

Oh, I'm sorry - you didn't know that prosecutors are in the legal profession as well as lawyers. Well, they are. So now you know.

The fact that Bodström is a lawyer and not a prosecutor is neither here nor there, because technically he would have had the same - possibly better - chance of getting his post as a prosecutor.

And then, of course, there is the Swedish sinecur of "Länshövding" (County Chieftain - a kind of mayoral role with only symbolic value, but a nifty residency and a nice pay packet) which is often awarded high profile faithful party members once they are done doing actual work. Very often given to former county prosecutors or former ministers who reside in the area. It's basically a gold clad retirement with some ribbon cutting.

All these things are awarded through the party in charge of the county or the country. It does not go through the people. There is no election - politicians hand out these as awards for kissing ass.

Let's see if I follow the reasoning:

Thomas Bodström has been the Swedish Minister for Justice. He made a career as a lawyer. He could have made the same career being a prosecutor. For this reason all prosecutors are politically driven. Therefore the case against Assange is politically driven.

And yes, a lot of Swedish official positions are filled not by direct election but by indirect decisions by our elected politicians, starting from the prime minister and moving down. You can have a lot of opinions of this (I certainly do not agree with how all of that is handled), but that does not automatically lead to that this case is a political case.

(Why you added that slur about me not knowing that prosecutor is a legal profession I have no idea, but let's just say that it didn't come as a surprise for me).

whatthebutlersaw · 8th December 2010, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

How does Sweden generally handle "He said, She said" type court cases?

The same way as most other countries. Deadlock, and when in doubt, not guilty. A lot of weight is put on how well the parties can speek for themselves - how veracious they appear - which of course favours sociopaths. Both ways.

Then there are plenty of legal stumbling blocks that can cause an obvious open and shut case to end with a roomfull of dropped jaws. There was a horrible case a few years back, which was the reason for the now more strict definition of rape, where an underage girl (really underage) had been roofied with moonshine and sleeping pills and then group raped in a car. The court found that everything had happened the way the girl described it and technical evidence showed that all the accused had been at it. But her powerless state had left her unable to communicate that she didn't want to have sex, so the court found that they had no legal ground for calling coercion. Yes. I know. I think there is a thread about it somewhere from 2006 or so.

In a Swedish courtroom you will find, instead of a jury, a couple of barristers, lawyers, the judge and then six to eight "nämndemän" who are civilians appointed by the local authority. (Yes, they get their posts for being good party members. Of whichever party.)

Most cases are first heard in town court (Tingsrätten) and can then be appealed to county court (Länsrätten) which will typically have more legal professionals and fewer nämndemän. There are a couple more tiers, through which appeals can go if you are not happy with Länsrätten (which mostly handles cases of care orders) - such as Kammarrätten and Högsta Domstolen (Which will typically only take a case if it has the merits to result in a change in the law.). If you are still not happy and you can get bearing you can be heard in the EU court.

The rate of Tingsrätt-judgements overturned in Länsrätten is shockingly high. I can't recall the exact number now, but I had to sit down when I saw it. A lot of people consider Tingsrätten to be a joke. Unfortunately, many people rarely drive their cases any further than that.

Swedish lawyers can not work pro bono and they can not work "no win no fee". You have the right to legal aid or public representation for the first instance, but any appeal will come out of your own pocket.

whatthebutlersaw · 8th December 2010, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Let's see if I follow the reasoning:

Thomas Bodström has been the Swedish Minister for Justice. He made a career as a lawyer. He could have made the same career being a prosecutor. For this reason all prosecutors are politically driven. Therefore the case against Assange is politically driven.

And yes, a lot of Swedish official positions are filled not by direct election but by indirect decisions by our elected politicians, starting from the prime minister and moving down. You can have a lot of opinions of this (I certainly do not agree with how all of that is handled), but that does not automatically lead to that this case is a political case.

(Why you added that slur about me not knowing that prosecutor is a legal profession I have no idea, but let's just say that it didn't come as a surprise for me).

You seem to be saying it _can't_ be politically motivated, which is a bit odd.

Are you aware of the Gothenburg riot trials? Or the Pirate Bay trials? Or the Bonniers vs. Epix trials? Are you seriously suggesting that the Swedish legal system does not on occasion throw out the law in favour of what is politically expedient?

It's not a slur. You appeared not to comprehend it and I explained it to you. A slur would be something like: "Your mum goes chippy in her slippers." (Unless she actually does. Then it's not a slur.)

Aepervius · 8th December 2010, 03:46 AM

That remind me of Reiser (author of reiser FS) and him being accused of murdering his wife, and people jumping in its defense. There were a lot of non sense, pre conviction and pre absolution from both side of the "fence" , and some people fearing reiser FS should get guilt b association. He was guilty. ReiserFS trived, and reiser4 is in development.

Even if assange is guilty , or even if assange is innocent, it should not matter a single bit for wikileaks. Point is , it should, not it will.

PhantomWolf · 8th December 2010, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Are you joking, or did you miss the part about the prosecutor with political ambitions reopening a case that was dropped because there was no there there?

Yes I did miss that part because you made it up out of whole cloth. Did you miss the part where the prosecutor stated that the case was reopened because of "new evidence", that appartently being that in the second case he had sex with the woman while she was asleep. The first attempt to create a rape case scandel failed when the prosecutor saw through it, so they rejigged the stories and added a bit more to make sure that it had enough the second time. With the woman saying that she was asleep, the prosecutor has no choice by to reopen the case as that is rape in any book.

Quote:

And no bail on a petty charge where the suspect turned himself in? Come on.

You mean a suspect who has no abode, entered the country illegally and is known to move about internationally at a drop of a hat? No, not a flight risk at all.

Here_to_learn · 8th December 2010, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw

You seem to be saying it _can't_ be politically motivated, which is a bit odd.

No, the opposite of "we know that it is politically motivated" is not "It is not politically motivated" but "we do not know that it is politically motivated". In my opinion there is a lot of speculation going on, partly here, but even more so on the Internet at large, some of it more suitable for the conspiracy theory part of this forum. We should certainly keep a close watch on the trials as they move on to do our best to ensure a fair trial. But that does not make wild speculation before the trials any more correct.

Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw

Are you aware of the Gothenburg riot trials? Or the Pirate Bay trials? Or the Bonniers vs. Epix trials? Are you seriously suggesting that the Swedish legal system does not on occasion throw out the law in favour of what is politically expedient?

Yes, I'm aware of them. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Swedish law and these specific cases to be able to say that they have thrown out the law - my thinking being just because I don't necessarily agree with the end result of a trial does not mean that I claim that the decision is wrong. In many cases I get the feeling that people that complain about a certain trial result are politically motived - basically that there beef with the result is not that it breaks the law as it stands but more that it breaks the law as they would like to see it.

Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw

It's not a slur. You appeared not to comprehend it and I explained it to you. A slur would be something like: "Your mum goes chippy in her slippers." (Unless she actually does. Then it's not a slur.)

I'm sorry that I made you believe that - I guess the lesson is - don't believe everything you think you have read on the Internet.

gumboot · 8th December 2010, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

How does Sweden generally handle "He said, She said" type court cases?

My understanding is that Sweden has pretty harsh laws when it comes to the matter of rape. They made it possible for a husband to be convicted of raping his wife something like three decades before anyone else did. Rape in Sweden is a very, very big deal.

ddt · 8th December 2010, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

He has also linked to several blog posts, for example this one from ENEMIES OF REASON

Originally Posted by Enemies of Reason

None of that, though, excuses Assange if he's guilty of what he's accused of. But at the moment it is "if". People's private lives are different from the actions of governments; individuals have the right to privacy and an expectation that these things should not be pored over in public. So if there is an investigation, a crime, accusations and so on, perhaps this is one instance where we don't have the right to know everything. We must wait and see what happens, and leave any assumptions aside.

Considerable details about what perspired between the two women and Assange is a matter of public information: both women have tweeted and blogged about their meetings with Assange, and in fact, those writings contradict rape allegations.

Here_to_learn · 8th December 2010, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

Considerable details about what perspired between the two women and Assange is a matter of public information: both women have tweeted and blogged about their meetings with Assange, and in fact, those writings contradict rape allegations.

And I think it's well known that victims of crimes, especially there the crimes are of sexual or domestic violent types, have tried to hide what has happened and tried to "show a happy face".

I'm not saying that this is what has happened - just that we *don't know* what happened. As such we should not judge either side.

7th December 2010, 04:39 PM	#122
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,091	Of course, ANY charges now will be CLAIMED to be politically-motivated whether they are or not. And whatever the motivation of the charges themselves, it is not surprising that other governments are very willing to move along a warrant that would otherwise languish until the person presented himself at a border.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

7th December 2010, 05:36 PM	#123
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,893	Originally Posted by BenBurch Of course, ANY charges now will be CLAIMED to be politically-motivated whether they are or not. And whatever the motivation of the charges themselves, it is not surprising that other governments are very willing to move along a warrant that would otherwise languish until the person presented himself at a border. Except that he presented himself at a police station. They didn't have a lot of options at that point.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

7th December 2010, 06:00 PM	#124
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,711	Originally Posted by Puppycow It seems that Swedish rape law is a bit different. Perhaps this article will shed some light: http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/d...a&type=article The prosecuter has dismissed suggestions that the charges are politically motivated. I posted that from my droid and it's a mobile link, but here is the desktop version. I just want to extract the legal issues from the article, if I may: Quote: Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish prosecutors, said the first involved complainant A, who said she was the victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner. The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used. The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home. . . . Unlike the UK, Swedish rape law is not based on consent but on the aforementioned concept of sexual integrity. There are a number of possible offences against this integrity. Those that involve both penetration and either physical force or a threat of some illegal act, such as violence, are classified as rape. So are assaults on people who are helpless at the time, either as a result of intoxication or severe mental disturbance. The degree of physical force involved need only be very small. It can be enough merely to move the victim's legs apart, according to Gunilla Berglund, at the Swedish ministry of justice. Rape carries a sentence of between two and six years; aggravated rape a sentence of four to 10 years. Furthermore, this: Originally Posted by egslim It gets better, with this article from Crikey The women are named there, it seems 'Woman A' is Ardin and 'Woman B' is Wilén. From a barrister who represented Assange, is a blatant example of character assassination against the victims. The purpose is to name them, shame them and discredit them. In the Guardian and other papers, they are only referred to as 'Woman A' and 'Woman B'. Finally, putting aside the merits or the case, does anyone have any hard evidence that the charges are politically motivated?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

7th December 2010, 06:20 PM	#125
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,893	Quote: having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep If the facts support this allegation, then I suspect this would be considered rape in most western countries.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

7th December 2010, 06:25 PM	#126
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,091	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf If the facts support this allegation, then I suspect this would be considered rape in most western countries. Oh yes it would.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

7th December 2010, 04:18 PM	#121
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Puppycow It seems that Swedish rape law is a bit different. Perhaps this article will shed some light: http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/d...a&type=article The prosecuter has dismissed suggestions that the charges are politically motivated. . Doesn't mean the charges aren't. Prosecutors are political animals. High profile wins help their political futures.

7th December 2010, 07:26 PM	#127
little grey rabbit Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,167	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf If the facts support this allegation, then I suspect this would be considered rape in most western countries. According to the Guardian Quote: The following day, the woman attended and helped facilitate the event, at which Miss W was also present. According to her police interview, Miss W accompanied the Australian and some male guests to lunch at which he flirted with her; afterwards the pair went to the cinema, where she told police she had performed oral sex on him. They slept together that night, using a condom, and again the following morning, when both parties appear to agree that a condom was not used, after which Assange left. Its going to be an entertaining court case that is for sure.

7th December 2010, 11:06 PM	#128
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,937	She performed oral sex on him in the theater? That's so tacky. What's this about her being asleep then?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

8th December 2010, 12:11 AM	#129
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by McHrozni He wasn't ordered to submit to STD testing. He was asked, and he refused. That doesn't make him a rapist*, true, but it hardly makes him an upstanding member of society, either. From what I understand, she wasn't able to get in touch with him, as he had his cell phone turned off. She asked around to see if anyone else knew where he could be found or contacted, and in the process found out she wasn't the only one he'd had relations with. By the time she got in touch with him, it was the weekend and no clinics were open. Not something he did deliberately to be an ass. Just bad timing. In the meantime, she and the other woman had gone to the police, though they say it was not with the intent of getting him in trouble... (I find that dubious. Going to the police and making a statement is not a good way to avoid getting people into trouble)
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

8th December 2010, 12:18 AM	#130
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,711	Originally Posted by Travis What's this about her being asleep then? That's what the charge says. Maybe she's a heavy sleeper, or maybe she was really intoxicated. Or maybe she woke up at some point after he began to initiate sex.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

8th December 2010, 12:18 AM	#131
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,650	No he's not a rapist. But with Pilger and Chomsky supporting him, I may change my mind.

8th December 2010, 12:39 AM	#132
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by ddt Do you have a link what Holder said about copyright infringement? Because thati s, well, the most ridiculous chare I heard thus far. According to US law, documents produced by the US government are not copyrighted! No, sorry if I wasn't clear. That's not what I meant. Holder just said he was working on something to charge Assange with. I was using copyright as an example of the only law I could think of that would apply to someone outside the US who was given the material. I made it up. I wasn't saying Holder made the charge. Receiving stolen property? How does Assange differ from the NY Times? Proving one is news and one isn't would be darn hard given the blogosphere is considered a news source by many people. You can't just make up a crime after the fact when someone does something that simply embarrasses the government. And I've not seen the evidence yet that anyone has been put in danger from the leaks.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th December 2010, 12:40 AM	#133
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by WildCat You're right. We should never believe sluts who claim they were raped. I take it you haven't read anything about this case. Neither of these women ever said they were raped by Assange.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th December 2010, 12:42 AM	#134
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by BenBurch This is why prosecutors have the power to decide who not to prosecute. No. This is what the Constitution says about freedom of the press.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th December 2010, 12:50 AM	#135
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by Travis .... This circus act is annoying. Fred Phelps is way more annoying. Yet we tolerate that nonsense because no one in a position of power cares that much. The point is, people should not be going to jail on trumped up charges because the government is annoyed. Either there is a law the guy broke, or there isn't. He didn't steal the documents as far as we know. And news organizations are not being prosecuted for publishing the same material. Where is the evidence of people's lives being endangered? You really don't care that people in the government can put people in jail on trumped up charges because said persons are political liabilities? I find that way more troublesome than any of the leaks I'm aware of so far.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th December 2010, 12:52 AM	#136
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf The more I hear the more I am sure that this has been totally set up, by Assange and his supporters. They couldn't have bought this sort of publicity. Are you joking, or did you miss the part about the prosecutor with political ambitions reopening a case that was dropped because there was no there there? And no bail on a petty charge where the suspect turned himself in? Come on.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th December 2010, 12:53 AM	#137
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,042	Originally Posted by I Ratant . Doesn't mean the charges aren't. Prosecutors are political animals. High profile wins help their political futures. So how many swedish politicians are basing their political career on beeing former prosecutors? I assume you base your statement on experience of Swedish politics, and not of how it works in any other other countries.

8th December 2010, 01:06 AM	#138
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by Puppycow ... The prosecuter has dismissed suggestions that the charges are politically motivated. That's a joke. So how is the guy responsible if he uses a condom that breaks? Did I miss that in the link? And why would a somewhat famous guy, good looking, need to force himself on anyone? Both of these ladies said they only wanted Assange to get an STD test. Chances are they were disappointed to find out he wasn't in love. No charges of, "Hey this guy forced himself on me", were ever made as far as I can see. The first prosecutor said there was not enough evidence for any charges. It is totally a trial by media second guessing, filling in the blanks (stuff they didn't know) with stuff that sells more news, and being willing partners to the character assassination the US government is waging by not doing their job as investigative journalists.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th December 2010, 01:19 AM	#139
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,042	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It is totally a trial by media second guessing, filling in the blanks (stuff they didn't know) with stuff that sells more news, and being willing partners to the character assassination the US government is waging by not doing their job as investigative journalists. As opposed to trial by Internet, basing opinion on rumors and blogposts based on other rumors. David Allen Green (Jack of Kent) did tweet this about 13 hours ago: Originally Posted by @davidallengreen We have the arrest warrant and the charges as read out in court. Beyond that there is little to no info to base such strong views #Assange about 13 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® #Assange Am astonished just how many people have strong and detailed views at to law and facts based on no sources whatsoever. about 13 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® He has also linked to several blog posts, for example this one from ENEMIES OF REASON Originally Posted by Enemies of reason None of that, though, excuses Assange if he's guilty of what he's accused of. But at the moment it is "if". People's private lives are different from the actions of governments; individuals have the right to privacy and an expectation that these things should not be pored over in public. So if there is an investigation, a crime, accusations and so on, perhaps this is one instance where we don't have the right to know everything. We must wait and see what happens, and leave any assumptions aside.

8th December 2010, 01:23 AM	#140
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by Here_to_learn So how many swedish politicians are basing their political career on beeing former prosecutors? I assume you base your statement on experience of Swedish politics, and not of how it works in any other other countries. It is extremely common here for prosecutors to have political ambitions. The majority of Congresspersons and Senators in this country are lawyers by profession. They weren't all defense lawyers. The Congressmen in my district, though a police chief and not a prosecutor, cites his claim to fame was catching the Green River Serial Murderer. (And truthfully, he did nothing to earn that claim and actually failed to stop the murderer for may years.) Gary Ridgway^WP Quote: The most notable members of the task force were Robert Keppel and Dave Reichert, who periodically interviewed incarcerated serial killer Ted Bundy from 1984. Their interviews with Bundy were of little help in the Green River investigations but elicited confessions from Bundy on unsolved cases. Also contributing was John E. Douglas, who has since written much on the subject of the Green River Killer. Ridgway was arrested in 1982 and 2001 on charges related to prostitution. He became a suspect in 1983 in the Green River killings. In 1984, Ridgway took and passed a polygraph test, and on April 7, 1987, police took hair and saliva samples from Ridgway. Dave Reichert^WP Quote: Reichert was a leading member of the Green River Task Force, which was formed to track down the so-called "Green River Killer." DNA evidence eventually identified Gary Leon Ridgway as the Green River Killer in 2001.[6] Ridgway was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the Green River murders.[7] Reichert refers to this qualification in every campaign. Thomas E. Dewey^WP was another politician who launched his campaign on his fame as a prosecutor. Quote: Dewey rocketed to fame in 1935, when he was appointed special prosecutor in New York County And even if not having political ambitions, lots of prosecutors desire the fame of prosecuting famous cases.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th December 2010, 01:27 AM	#141
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,515	Originally Posted by Here_to_learn As opposed to trial by Internet, basing opinion on rumors and blogposts based on other rumors. David Allen Green (Jack of Kent) did tweet this about 13 hours ago: He has also linked to several blog posts, for example this one from ENEMIES OF REASON One can sift through the chaff to get to the wheat on the Internet. It's not the Net that is the issue, it is using critical thinking to assess the validity of the sources.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

8th December 2010, 01:28 AM	#142
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,042	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It is extremely common here for prosecutors to have political ambitions. The majority of Congresspersons and Senators in this country are lawyers by profession. They weren't all defense lawyers. Yes, thank you.That is why I asked: Originally Posted by Here_to_learn So how many swedish politicians are basing their political career on beeing former prosecutors? I assume you base your statement on experience of Swedish politics, and not of how it works in any other other countries. My bolding.

8th December 2010, 01:30 AM	#143
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,042	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger One can sift through the chaff to get to the wheat on the Internet. It's not the Net that is the issue, it is using critical thinking to assess the validity of the sources. Assuming that all facts are available on the Net. If not, the only conclusion you can come to using the Net as a source is "we don't know".

8th December 2010, 01:35 AM	#144
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,104	Having read some of the information released, I'm inclined to think that in the first instance no crime was committed - it's a case of a woman trying to get revenge on a guy she feels cheated on her. The second case, however, sounds like there's more to it. If he did, indeed, have sex with this woman the following morning while she was asleep, he's a rapist. I'm curious as to what the "new evidence" is that led to the reopening of the case. If it was just one of the girls "remembering" some new detail, sounds like a sham. But it might not be, and I'm willing to wait and see. I'm also inclined to think it's quite possible this whole thing is politically motived, but when I say that what I mean is I think the prosecutor might have taken up the case to further her career because it's high profile. I personally think the idea that the girls fabricated this whole thing (presumably in collusion with the Swedish Government and the US Government) to bring the guy in so he could be swept away to some CIA prison or whatever to be frankly laughable, and nothing short of an extremely paranoid conspiracy theory. I think Assange might have an over-inflated idea of his own importance, to be honest. The US government won't be after him for these leaks, they're after the people that leaked the documents to him. Those people they can legitimately lock up and throw away the key.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

8th December 2010, 01:39 AM	#145
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,317	I am wondering why the focus on Assange, he is not wikileaks. If they jail him, remove all communication, the leaks will continue.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

8th December 2010, 01:49 AM	#146
whatthebutlersaw Dessert Arsonist Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: East of the Sun Posts: 4,037	In defence of Skeptic Ginger's stand, although Swedish politics (and non-jury based legal system) are different from both US, UK and and Australian, there is scope to make a political career out of a legal one. This has happened before as I explained in my earlier post about Krister Van Der Kwast and Thomas Quick. You don't get elected to positions like public prosecutor etc here, but it helps to have a high public profile, media presence and to belong to whichever party or coalition is in charge at a time when such a position is filled. The minister of justice in the former Social Democrat government, Thomas Bodström, built his career like that: faithful party member + high public profile and media presence + favoured by the market forces for protecting their interests = minister of justice post when the party is in power. The difference is who makes the pick. And whaddayaknow, the people who make the pick like the kind of people who have the habit of quadrulabially inhale US derière.
	__________________ Ask the Gatorade Brigade about electrolytes. Just don't ask them to water your plants on your holiday. Permense! Gaudere meum - scis qui es.

8th December 2010, 01:50 AM	#147
whatthebutlersaw Dessert Arsonist Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: East of the Sun Posts: 4,037	Originally Posted by a_unique_person I am wondering why the focus on Assange, he is not wikileaks. If they jail him, remove all communication, the leaks will continue. To let everyone know that if they piss you off, you can **** them up and democracy will not protect them?
	__________________ Ask the Gatorade Brigade about electrolytes. Just don't ask them to water your plants on your holiday. Permense! Gaudere meum - scis qui es.

8th December 2010, 02:07 AM	#148
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,042	Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw I...there is scope to make a political career out of a legal one. This has happened before as I explained in my earlier post about Krister Van Der Kwast and Thomas Quick. In what way has Krister Van Der Kwast had a political career? Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw You don't get elected to positions like public prosecutor etc here, but it helps to have a high public profile, media presence and to belong to whichever party or coalition is in charge at a time when such a position is filled. The minister of justice in the former Social Democrat government, Thomas Bodström, built his career like that: faithful party member + high public profile and media presence + favoured by the market forces for protecting their interests = minister of justice post when the party is in power. Then I repeat my question to you - how many Swedish politician have based their political career on an earlier career as a prosecutor? Thomas Bodström has not been a prosecutor. It's hardly surprising that having a high public profile helps in politics, but that doesn't mean that every prosecutor that handles a high-profile case does this to become a politician. This is not a a case of "correlation does not imply causation", I can't even see the correlation.

8th December 2010, 02:10 AM	#149
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,937	How does Sweden generally handle "He said, She said" type court cases?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

8th December 2010, 02:27 AM	#150
whatthebutlersaw Dessert Arsonist Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: East of the Sun Posts: 4,037	Originally Posted by Here_to_learn In what way has Krister Van Der Kwast had a political career? Then I repeat my question to you - how many Swedish politician have based their political career on an earlier career as a prosecutor? Thomas Bodström has not been a prosecutor. It's hardly surprising that having a high public profile helps in politics, but that doesn't mean that every prosecutor that handles a high-profile case does this to become a politician. This is not a a case of "correlation does not imply causation", I can't even see the correlation. After raising his profile van der Kwast was given the post of "Överåklagare" which approximates Chief Prosecutor. Before retirement, he served as "Länsåklagare" which in US terms would probably be something like State Prosecutor, or in UK terms, County Prosecutor. Those posts are filled politically. Not by election, but by nominating bodies that are selected by the party in charge. That sounds like a career to me. But maybe you aim higher? You lookin' to sit on the right hand of god at judgement day or something? Oh, I'm sorry - you didn't know that prosecutors are in the legal profession as well as lawyers. Well, they are. So now you know. The fact that Bodström is a lawyer and not a prosecutor is neither here nor there, because technically he would have had the same - possibly better - chance of getting his post as a prosecutor. And then, of course, there is the Swedish sinecur of "Länshövding" (County Chieftain - a kind of mayoral role with only symbolic value, but a nifty residency and a nice pay packet) which is often awarded high profile faithful party members once they are done doing actual work. Very often given to former county prosecutors or former ministers who reside in the area. It's basically a gold clad retirement with some ribbon cutting. All these things are awarded through the party in charge of the county or the country. It does not go through the people. There is no election - politicians hand out these as awards for kissing ass.
	__________________ Ask the Gatorade Brigade about electrolytes. Just don't ask them to water your plants on your holiday. Permense! Gaudere meum - scis qui es.

8th December 2010, 02:32 AM	#151
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,042	Originally Posted by Travis How does Sweden generally handle "He said, She said" type court cases? In general, probably not well... I do not have a legal training, so this is just my impressions, but there has been debate in Sweden about strengthening the law specifically around consent. Maybe other have better knowledge about this.

8th December 2010, 02:44 AM	#152
Here_to_learn Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 2,042	Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw After raising his profile van der Kwast was given the post of "Överåklagare" which approximates Chief Prosecutor. Before retirement, he served as "Länsåklagare" which in US terms would probably be something like State Prosecutor, or in UK terms, County Prosecutor. Those posts are filled politically. Not by election, but by nominating bodies that are selected by the party in charge. That sounds like a career to me. But maybe you aim higher? You lookin' to sit on the right hand of god at judgement day or something? Oh, I'm sorry - you didn't know that prosecutors are in the legal profession as well as lawyers. Well, they are. So now you know. The fact that Bodström is a lawyer and not a prosecutor is neither here nor there, because technically he would have had the same - possibly better - chance of getting his post as a prosecutor. And then, of course, there is the Swedish sinecur of "Länshövding" (County Chieftain - a kind of mayoral role with only symbolic value, but a nifty residency and a nice pay packet) which is often awarded high profile faithful party members once they are done doing actual work. Very often given to former county prosecutors or former ministers who reside in the area. It's basically a gold clad retirement with some ribbon cutting. All these things are awarded through the party in charge of the county or the country. It does not go through the people. There is no election - politicians hand out these as awards for kissing ass. Let's see if I follow the reasoning: Thomas Bodström has been the Swedish Minister for Justice. He made a career as a lawyer. He could have made the same career being a prosecutor. For this reason all prosecutors are politically driven. Therefore the case against Assange is politically driven. And yes, a lot of Swedish official positions are filled not by direct election but by indirect decisions by our elected politicians, starting from the prime minister and moving down. You can have a lot of opinions of this (I certainly do not agree with how all of that is handled), but that does not automatically lead to that this case is a political case. (Why you added that slur about me not knowing that prosecutor is a legal profession I have no idea, but let's just say that it didn't come as a surprise for me).

8th December 2010, 02:46 AM	#153
whatthebutlersaw Dessert Arsonist Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: East of the Sun Posts: 4,037	Originally Posted by Travis How does Sweden generally handle "He said, She said" type court cases? The same way as most other countries. Deadlock, and when in doubt, not guilty. A lot of weight is put on how well the parties can speek for themselves - how veracious they appear - which of course favours sociopaths. Both ways. Then there are plenty of legal stumbling blocks that can cause an obvious open and shut case to end with a roomfull of dropped jaws. There was a horrible case a few years back, which was the reason for the now more strict definition of rape, where an underage girl (really underage) had been roofied with moonshine and sleeping pills and then group raped in a car. The court found that everything had happened the way the girl described it and technical evidence showed that all the accused had been at it. But her powerless state had left her unable to communicate that she didn't want to have sex, so the court found that they had no legal ground for calling coercion. Yes. I know. I think there is a thread about it somewhere from 2006 or so. In a Swedish courtroom you will find, instead of a jury, a couple of barristers, lawyers, the judge and then six to eight "nämndemän" who are civilians appointed by the local authority. (Yes, they get their posts for being good party members. Of whichever party.) Most cases are first heard in town court (Tingsrätten) and can then be appealed to county court (Länsrätten) which will typically have more legal professionals and fewer nämndemän. There are a couple more tiers, through which appeals can go if you are not happy with Länsrätten (which mostly handles cases of care orders) - such as Kammarrätten and Högsta Domstolen (Which will typically only take a case if it has the merits to result in a change in the law.). If you are still not happy and you can get bearing you can be heard in the EU court. The rate of Tingsrätt-judgements overturned in Länsrätten is shockingly high. I can't recall the exact number now, but I had to sit down when I saw it. A lot of people consider Tingsrätten to be a joke. Unfortunately, many people rarely drive their cases any further than that. Swedish lawyers can not work pro bono and they can not work "no win no fee". You have the right to legal aid or public representation for the first instance, but any appeal will come out of your own pocket.
	__________________ Ask the Gatorade Brigade about electrolytes. Just don't ask them to water your plants on your holiday. Permense! Gaudere meum - scis qui es.

8th December 2010, 02:51 AM	#154
whatthebutlersaw Dessert Arsonist Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: East of the Sun Posts: 4,037	Originally Posted by Here_to_learn Let's see if I follow the reasoning: Thomas Bodström has been the Swedish Minister for Justice. He made a career as a lawyer. He could have made the same career being a prosecutor. For this reason all prosecutors are politically driven. Therefore the case against Assange is politically driven. And yes, a lot of Swedish official positions are filled not by direct election but by indirect decisions by our elected politicians, starting from the prime minister and moving down. You can have a lot of opinions of this (I certainly do not agree with how all of that is handled), but that does not automatically lead to that this case is a political case. (Why you added that slur about me not knowing that prosecutor is a legal profession I have no idea, but let's just say that it didn't come as a surprise for me). You seem to be saying it _can't_ be politically motivated, which is a bit odd. Are you aware of the Gothenburg riot trials? Or the Pirate Bay trials? Or the Bonniers vs. Epix trials? Are you seriously suggesting that the Swedish legal system does not on occasion throw out the law in favour of what is politically expedient? It's not a slur. You appeared not to comprehend it and I explained it to you. A slur would be something like: "Your mum goes chippy in her slippers." (Unless she actually does. Then it's not a slur.)
	__________________ Ask the Gatorade Brigade about electrolytes. Just don't ask them to water your plants on your holiday. Permense! Gaudere meum - scis qui es.

8th December 2010, 03:46 AM	#155
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,735	That remind me of Reiser (author of reiser FS) and him being accused of murdering his wife, and people jumping in its defense. There were a lot of non sense, pre conviction and pre absolution from both side of the "fence" , and some people fearing reiser FS should get guilt b association. He was guilty. ReiserFS trived, and reiser4 is in development. Even if assange is guilty , or even if assange is innocent, it should not matter a single bit for wikileaks. Point is , it should, not it will.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.