Moderated: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There seems to be a preponderance of the default position two women who felt they were assaulted went to the cops.

That is not what the initial case was. Two women who had consensual casual sex with Assange found out about each other and their initial reaction was to ask Assange to have an STD test. Apparently his reaction was not what they wanted. So they went to the cops to see if they could force Assange to have an STD test. The prosecutor told them there was no evidence of a crime.

SEVERAL MONTHS later and AFTER Assange became the focus of the Wikileaks international scandal, unrelated to the sex with these women, the head of the department which covers these kinds of crimes twisted the story into one of forced/coerced sex to which at least one of the women has objected to the characterization of.

I'd like to know why those in the thread who are going on and on about date rape and whether or not one can start intercourse without waking someone up are assuming the premise these are actually what the women's initial complaints were and are not the rewording of the complaints by a prosecutor with more political motive for bringing these charges than actual interest in the crime on its face?

Why was the story changed from, we want the guy to get an STD test, to, we were coerced/forced? Why were the formal charges only made after Assange became the focus of the latest Wikileaks leaks?

And have you all never been in a court room? Each side, defense and prosecution, present the case with a slanted view. That's their job!

Why did the story 'change'? It didn't. The characterization by other people changed. The fact that their original description of the events does indicated one sexual assault hasn't changed. People payed more attention to the description, that's what has changed.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There seems to be a preponderance of the default position two women who felt they were assaulted went to the cops.

That is not what the initial case was. Two women who had consensual casual sex with Assange found out about each other and their initial reaction was to ask Assange to have an STD test. Apparently his reaction was not what they wanted. So they went to the cops to see if they could force Assange to have an STD test. The prosecutor told them there was no evidence of a crime.

SEVERAL MONTHS later and AFTER Assange became the focus of the Wikileaks international scandal, unrelated to the sex with these women, the head of the department which covers these kinds of crimes twisted the story into one of forced/coerced sex to which at least one of the women has objected to the characterization of.

I'd like to know why those in the thread who are going on and on about date rape and whether or not one can start intercourse without waking someone up are assuming the premise these are actually what the women's initial complaints were and are not the rewording of the complaints by a prosecutor with more political motive for bringing these charges than actual interest in the crime on its face?

Why was the story changed from, we want the guy to get an STD test, to, we were coerced/forced? Why were the formal charges only made after Assange became the focus of the latest Wikileaks leaks?

And have you all never been in a court room? Each side, defense and prosecution, present the case with a slanted view. That's their job!

Perhaps you need to read what their lawyer says instead of making stuff up, or believing those that have.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by ftl

The Sierra Leone was just one example; the article says

That list includes both 3rd and 1st world countries. Did you read the article? It includes statements about US and Swedish cases.

Her claim is that, all around, rape is never treated this seriously. That's unfortunate, but true.

A lack of prosecution for rape cases in all sorts of places shows that Sweden's prosecution of Assange is a sham. It indicates that if Assange HADN'T pissed off the governments of the world, his case would have probably been treated as lightly as all the other accusations of rape are.


Written out step-by-step, the logic goes as follows:

1) Rape cases are almost always dealt with far more leniently than in Assange's case.
2) Follow-up question - what's different about the Assange case than all the other rape cases? Why is he being prosecuted where lots of other men wouldn't be?
3) It's not the circumstances of the rape - it's not an especially brutal case, it's not an especially easy-to-prove case, the victims aren't unusually famous. Assange isn't a member of a persecuted minority, so that's not it.
4) Conclusion: the only remaining reason why Assange is being treated far more harshly than most people who are accused of rape is because of HIS infamy with regards to WikiLeaks.

Of course, there's always the possibility that there's some other reasons we don't know. But there's no evidence for them. The government of the US (or any other government harmed by WikiLeaks) certainly has the motive to lock up Assange; they certainly have the means to put pressure on Sweden (there's some pretty big governments harmed by WikiLeaks, this isn't Monaco having objections) and, when these two women went to the police, they got the opportunity.

yes there are differences, in most of the cases she listed the suspects are unknowns or living in countries with virtually no legal systems. Even in the UK it was stated by the police that they weren't going to do anything to go out of their way to get Assange. The only reason he was arrested is that he turned himself in. If any of those suspected of rape in other countries turned themselves in they'd likely get exactly the same treatment.

It's rather amazing watching people who claim to stand shoulder to shoulder with victims of sex attacks throwing the alledged victims under a bus and demanding that the alledged attacker can go free. Amazing, and somewhet shocking.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

yes there are differences, in most of the cases she listed the suspects are unknowns or living in countries with virtually no legal systems. Even in the UK it was stated by the police that they weren't going to do anything to go out of their way to get Assange. The only reason he was arrested is that he turned himself in. If any of those suspected of rape in other countries turned themselves in they'd likely get exactly the same treatment.

It's rather amazing watching people who claim to stand shoulder to shoulder with victims of sex attacks throwing the alledged victims under a bus and demanding that the alledged attacker can go free. Amazing, and somewhet shocking.

You have to admit that the evidence for a political motive in the prosecution is somewhat more clear-cut in this case than in run-of-the-mill sexual assault cases.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by ftl

The Sierra Leone was just one example; the article says

But a particularly inapt and irrelevant one.

Quote:

That list includes both 3rd and 1st world countries. Did you read the article? It includes statements about US and Swedish cases.

No, I didn't, because it is evident that the person a) doesn't have any special knowledge of this case and b) speaks with no authority on Swedish law or legal process.

Quote:

Her claim is that, all around, rape is never treated this seriously. That's unfortunate, but true.

It's bloody ridiculous, is what it is. That rape is usually not treated this seriously I could accept as an argument, but that it never is, is clearly wrong, particularly as I fail to see that his case has been treated especially seriously: the prosecution initially decided against prosecuting and it was only after (formal) pressure from the girl's (high profile) lawyer that they re-evaluated the case and decided to prosecute.

Sure, it's uncommon to send out an Interpol red notice for a common rape case, but then it's uncommon to send out red notices for pretty much any form crime: usually you know at least which country a suspect is located in, in which case there is no need to involve Interpol. It's hardly Sweden's fault that Assange is a globetrotter and kept a low profile (at least insofar as to his whereabouts.) Let us also not forget that the red notice [i]wasn't[/] what led to Assange arrest in the UK.

Quote:

A lack of prosecution for rape cases in all sorts of places shows that Sweden's prosecution of Assange is a sham.

No, it doesn't -- unless you want to argue that all of Sweden's prosecutions for rape have been shams and that all the people who're currently serving terms in Sweden's prisons for rape are innocents who have been set up.

He's not the first man who's been prosecuted for rape in Sweden, you know.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

You have to admit that the evidence for a political motive in the prosecution is somewhat more clear-cut in this case than in run-of-the-mill sexual assault cases.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence for a political motive beyond "the suspect is politically active and currently in the media's spotlight". I've yet to see anyone even explain what Sweden's alleged political motive is supposed to be here.

[CallmePete]

Originally Posted by Leif Roar

So far, I haven't seen any evidence for a political motive beyond "the suspect is politically active and currently in the media's spotlight". I've yet to see anyone even explain what Sweden's alleged political motive is supposed to be here.

I think its apparent to any rational people, that when it takes 3 X prosecutors to finally get on board, that there is political pressure being applied. Especially after the first one noted there were no laws broken, not to mention this is all over a broken condom.

Seriously, you do not see any evidence of irrationality happening here?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

You have to admit that the evidence for a political motive in the prosecution is somewhat more clear-cut in this case than in run-of-the-mill sexual assault cases.

What evidence is there for political motive other than speculation and desire for there to be?

The evidence for it not being political is that the women's lawyer has stated categotically that the reason it was reopened is because after he reviewed the case he felt that the second prosecutor was wrong and asked for it to be reopened.

Who is the one that is polictically motivated here?

The women? They were his supporters and only went to the police because they couldn't get him to do the right thing.

The Police woman? She listened to the women's story and recognised that even though they themselves hadn't realised it, what had been done could have been against the law.

The women's lawyer? He's doing what is in his clients' best interests.

The Prosecution Office? It reopened the case based on the women's lawyer's request based on a review of the evidence.

Where is the politics? The only ones trying to insert political motives in are the ones that can't see that perhaps the guy is more than just a total jerk when it comes to women.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by CallmePete

I think its apparent to any rational people, that when it takes 3 X prosecutors to finally get on board, that there is political pressure being applied. Especially after the first one noted there were no laws broken, not to mention this is all over a broken condom.

Seriously, you do not see any evidence of irrationality happening here?

Serious do you people actually bother to find out anything before spouting rubbish?

I've underlined the parts you got wrong.

First. The first prosecutor said there was a case, that it was rape. The second, who reviewed the case, said it was very close to, but in her opinion not actually rape. The Women's lawyer then later intervened after they hired him and he reviewed the case, he requested it to be reopened and the prosecution office agreed.

Second, the first prosecutor say that there were criminal offences. It was the second that after reviewing the case felt that "while it was close" it wasn't criminal, however still considered it to be "molestation without sexual motives."

Thirdly. This is not about a broken condom. This is about having sex with a woman who was asleep.

When you get the facts right you might see a different conclusion.

And yes I so see evidence of irrationality happening here, it's all coming from those that keep going on about broken condoms and "sex by surprise."

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by CallmePete

Seriously, you do not see any evidence of irrationality happening here?

No, what I see is evidence of this case being a borderline case of the law: one where it's not obvious if the actions constitutes a crime or not. As this seems to be a pretty fair description of the events as they have allegedly transpired, the prosecution's back-and-forth on this case doesn't strike me as strange or particularly remarkable.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

What evidence is there for political motive other than speculation and desire for there to be?

Circumstance. I guess the issue is what is your default position, since all insight into motivation is speculation (which I will engage in below). Do you think that a person that has pissed off a LOT of politically well connected people is more likely to be victim to trumped up charges than any random joe. What are the odds that such accusations would coincide with such a large media blitz?

Quote:

The evidence for it not being political is that the women's lawyer has stated categotically that the reason it was reopened is because after he reviewed the case he felt that the second prosecutor was wrong and asked for it to be reopened.

So you are claiming that if this was politically motivated the women's lawyers would state so? Interesting and baseless.

Quote:

Who is the one that is polictically motivated here?

The women? They were his supporters and only went to the police because they couldn't get him to do the right thing.

Jilted. They dont require political motivations.

Quote:

The Police woman? She listened to the women's story and recognised that even though they themselves hadn't realised it, what had been done could have been against the law.

She secretly hates Assange and wikileaks.

Quote:

The women's lawyer? He's doing what is in his clients' best interests.

He loves the spotlight.

Quote:

The Prosecution Office? It reopened the case based on the women's lawyer's request based on a review of the evidence.

Pressured by enemies of Assange.

Quote:

Where is the politics? The only ones trying to insert political motives in are the ones that can't see that perhaps the guy is more than just a total jerk when it comes to women.

Can you not see that women may lie? That political pressure can lead to trumped up charges? Do you support what wikileaks is doing? (the last is probably not a fair question, but it would be interesting to see how many pro wikileaks people are critical of assange in this case and how many anti wikileaks people are critical of the prosecution)

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

Circumstance. I guess the issue is what is your default position, since all insight into motivation is speculation (which I will engage in below). Do you think that a person that has pissed off a LOT of politically well connected people is more likely to be victim to trumped up charges than any random joe. What are the odds that such accusations would coincide with such a large media blitz?

So you are claiming that if this was politically motivated the women's lawyers would state so? Interesting and baseless.

Jilted. They dont require political motivations.

She secretly hates Assange and wikileaks.

He loves the spotlight.

Pressured by enemies of Assange.

Can you not see that women may lie? That political pressure can lead to trumped up charges? Do you support what wikileaks is doing? (the last is probably not a fair question, but it would be interesting to see how many pro wikileaks people are critical of assange in this case and how many anti wikileaks people are critical of the prosecution)

What a marvellous display of critical thinking. Throw out the evidence that the two things are entirely separate and make it all a conspriacy theory. It doesn't matter what is possible or happens, the evidence in this case is that it didn't.

The women didn't go to the police because they were jilted, they went because Assange refused to have a STD test and they wanted to know what they could do legally.

Where is the evidence that the police women even knew who Assange was, let alone was out to get him?

The women's lawyer is doing his job, making sure they get their day in court. If he's so into the limelight how come he isn't on every news station telling their story? I had to look hard to find it and I have yet to see anyone else reference much of what he said. Not exactly the actions of a spotlight seeker.

And finally, it's the law in Sweden that laywers can get cases reopened on request. We already know that the lawyer asked for it to be reopened. Why then does there have to be some shadowy force out there pressuring the Prosecution's office to do what they are legally bound to do anyway?

Let's try and do a little rational thinking here.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

What evidence is there for political motive other than speculation and desire for there to be?

There's ample evidence that Assange has enraged an enormous number of people, many of them very well-connected. I think the idea that there are not going to be consequences for Assange one way or another is naive.

Your attempt at a rebuttal I would summarise as "the prosecution is now saying that everything is and has always been above board, isn't that good enough for you?".

No, it is not, nor should it be for a skeptic. The alleged crime has changed repeatedly, the reason why the original allegations were worth Interpol's time in the first place has never been satisfactorily explained, the allegations are from a substantial time ago and just happened to flare up when Assange enraged the US government, and he's been denied bail on the grounds he is a flight risk despite the fact that he turned himself in. There are lots of reasons to suspect political motivations.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Guess we'll find out soon. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle of Illuminati conspiracy assassination and anarcho-blackmailer serial rapist.

Yes because obviously the truth is always in the middle.

False equivalency comes to mind.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Until you know what happened, and these women speak for themselves in a court of law, it is bordering on cruel to try to make them out to be liars.

And yet you seem content to let the prosecutor is speak for these women.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

You have to admit that the evidence for a political motive in the prosecution is somewhat more clear-cut in this case than in run-of-the-mill sexual assault cases.

Phantom W's having a very hard time seeing that fact.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Leif Roar

So far, I haven't seen any evidence for a political motive beyond "the suspect is politically active and currently in the media's spotlight". I've yet to see anyone even explain what Sweden's alleged political motive is supposed to be here.

We need a smiley for head in sand.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

There are lots of reasons to suspect political motivations.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[Here_to_learn]

I hope that everybody in this thread is aware of that it's not just the decision of a single prosecutor - the decision has been reviewed by two courts that upheld the decision. (although with some smaller changes to the charges).

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

What a marvellous display of critical thinking. Throw out the evidence that the two things are entirely separate and make it all a conspriacy theory. It doesn't matter what is possible or happens, the evidence in this case is that it didn't.

Your evidence is nothing but the word of the prosecutor.

Quote:

The women didn't go to the police because they were jilted, they went because Assange refused to have a STD test and they wanted to know what they could do legally.

That's a claim, not evidence. There is evidence that at least one, if not both, were jilted.

Quote:

Where is the evidence that the police women even knew who Assange was, let alone was out to get him?

I am speculating just like you, except I admitted it.

Quote:

The women's lawyer is doing his job, making sure they get their day in court. If he's so into the limelight how come he isn't on every news station telling their story? I had to look hard to find it and I have yet to see anyone else reference much of what he said. Not exactly the actions of a spotlight seeker.

And he's making a name for himself by bringing down Assange. He doesnt have to be in the media 24/7 to take advantage of the situation.

Quote:

And finally, it's the law in Sweden that laywers can get cases reopened on request. We already know that the lawyer asked for it to be reopened. Why then does there have to be some shadowy force out there pressuring the Prosecution's office to do what they are legally bound to do anyway?

Strawman much?

Quote:

Let's try and do a little rational thinking here.

You ignored several of my points.

1) Is it more likely for there to be trumped up charges brought against someone that pissed off the most politically connected people on the planet?
2) What are the odds that accusations such as this would be brought up to coincide with such a large release by Assange?
3) What would this case look like, according to you, if it was politically motivated?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

There's ample evidence that Assange has enraged an enormous number of people, many of them very well-connected. I think the idea that there are not going to be consequences for Assange one way or another is naive.

And plenty of people were annoyed with JFK, but that doesn't mean that the Cubans, FBI, the Mob, and Johnson conspired together to have a lone nutter shoot him. Sometimes things really are coincidental.

Quote:

Your attempt at a rebuttal I would summarise as "the prosecution is now saying that everything is and has always been above board, isn't that good enough for you?".

Reading ability isn't your greatest skill is it? The prosecution hasn't said anything, it is the women's lawyer that has, and he's not the prosecution.

Quote:

No, it is not, nor should it be for a skeptic. The alleged crime has changed repeatedly,

No it hasn't. The crimes given have been the same from the very start. The only things that have happened was that the charges were downgraded with one molestation charge being dropped, and a clarification made that the rape was what is essentially 3rd degree rape under Swedish law.

It has been the shockingly reporting about what happened with ideas that have been made up of speculation and outright lies that have kept changing things. Claims about it being because of broken condoms or "sex by surprise" are nothing but fabrications by Assanger's supporters and bad reporting.

Quote:

the reason why the original allegations were worth Interpol's time in the first place has never been satisfactorily explained

Interpol is not much more than an administrative group. They pass things on between national police forces. Sweden wanted Assanger for questioning and had reason to believe he wouldn't come back, so issued a request for his arrest. Interpol passed that on to the other EU Nations. Sweden only did that after they'd been in touch with his lawyer asking him to return for further questioning and were refused being told he was only willing to go the Embassy.

Quote:

the allegations are from a substantial time ago

They happened in August, that is not "a substantial time ago".

Quote:

and just happened to flare up when Assange enraged the US government

Which is Assange's fault. Had he returned when requested, it wouldn't have happened. The reason it took time after the initial dropping of charges is that the women had to hire a lawyer who then had to go through the case and petition to get it reopened, then the prosecution office has to review and determine what to do, that all takes time. A little over two months is not a lot of time for all of that.

Quote:

and he's been denied bail on the grounds he is a flight risk despite the fact that he turned himself in.

And has no connections in the UK to keep him there, is know to have people who would hide him, and doesn't actually have an abode in the UK. I doubt that anyone with that against them would get bail.

Quote:

There are lots of reasons to suspect political motivations.

And there are lots of reasons to suspect that the US attacked itself on 9/11 or that NASA Faked the moon landings, but under examination that reasons disolve into nothing, as do the reasons you have here. In the end those claiming political forces at work are just left with "But he annoyed the US, they MUST be out to get him, really." It doesn't fly.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And yet you seem content to let the prosecutor is speak for these women.

Funny thing, the Prosecution generally does talk for the victims when it come to criminal cases.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Phantom W's having a very hard time seeing that fact.

Except that there is no "facts" pointing at political motives. What there is, ia a lot of finger pointing and shouting by people that get the basic facts of the case wrong 90% of the time. It's almost become the WikiLeaks Truther Movement.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

We need a smiley for head in sand.

We need one for people going the way of the CT too. I think you need to remove the word "Skeptic" from your username, because you are far from that here, you'd rather believe speculation, rumor, and outright lies, then what the people involved are saying.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

There's ample evidence that Assange has enraged an enormous number of people, many of them very well-connected.

So far, though, he doesn't seem to have done much to have enraged anyone in Sweden -- the fact that US senators are crying for his blood isn't very relevant here.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

We need a smiley for head in sand.

So please tell me what evidence of political pressure or motive you've seen.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

Your evidence is nothing but the word of the prosecutor.

Another person with reading issues. The women's lawyer is not the prosecutor, and unless you have evidence to prove he's lying, why shouldn't we accept it? He's involved in the case, he was there, or are you going to ignore all witnesses for idle speculation, lies, and rumour?

Quote:

That's a claim, not evidence. There is evidence that at least one, if not both, were jilted.

It's been stated right from the beginning that they went to the police to find out if they could get him forced to do an STD test, what evidence do you have that contradicts that?

Quote:

I am speculating just like you, except I admitted it.

Occam's razor.

Quote:

And he's making a name for himself by bringing down Assange. He doesnt have to be in the media 24/7 to take advantage of the situation.

He is? Without looking it up, what's his name? Besides, he's not "bringing down" anyone, he is merely representing his clients. You have a strange understanding of the legal system.

Quote:

Strawman much?

Care to explain how pointing out that the prosecution being reopened on request of the woman's lawyer removes the need for outside pressures is a strawman against the claims that it was reopened because of political pressure?

Quote:

You ignored several of my points.

1) Is it more likely for there to be trumped up charges brought against someone that pissed off the most politically connected people on the planet?
2) What are the odds that accusations such as this would be brought up to coincide with such a large release by Assange?
3) What would this case look like, according to you, if it was politically motivated?

Yes I did because they are totally and utterly irrelevant to the known facts.

1) If I rob a bank and then embarrass the US Govt, is it more likely that I get charged for robbing the bank because I (a) robbed it, or (b) annoyed the US Govt?

2) What are the odds that a bullet fired at a man would just graze him before lodging in a tree, and then years later hit and kill the same man when the tree was dynamited? Coincidences do happen, and when you factor in that Assange is in the business of releasing documents the odds are pretty high that if he was charged with a crime it'd be close to some release or another.

3) What would 9/11 have looked like if the 9/11 TM was right? If the US were after him, then they'd have charges that were going to end up with him in the US. These are likely the lamest charges possible for trumped up charges. Sex crimes are notoriously hard to prove and even if found guilty these carry a maximum of 4 years. If you are going to get him politically, you hit him with something well planned and make the evidence so strong no-one can claim he was innocent, something that would have him locked away for a very long time, perhaps make sure he released a paper that then "killed" troops and get him on charges around that. No Govt in their right mind would be trying to use these because too much can go wrong. If you have a political case, you make sure it is air tight.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

3) What would this case look like, according to you, if it was politically motivated?

Well, for one thing, I doubt it would take place in Sweden. Sweden's justice system is reknown for being open to public scrutiny making it particularly ill-suited for that kind of shenangians, Sweden is still formally neutral and not an ally of USA which, together with Sweden's stance on capital punishment, protection of journalists and whistleblowers and personal freedoms, makes any extradition from Sweden to USA on any kind of espionage charges highly unlikely, and Sweden's liberal and progressive prison system would mean that an incarcerated Assange would by no means be a silenced Assange.

So -- why? Cui bono?

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yes because obviously the truth is always in the middle.

False equivalency comes to mind.

Not always. But in this case it probably is. It's being taken too far in both directions; Assange isn't nearly as important as either extreme thinks he is.

[George II]

If there are such clear cut evidence for political motives in this case, then somebody should be able to spell it out in a clear cut manner. Personally I beleive what many see as obvious political motives is just an illusion, created by the fact that Julian assange is a very public figure, the fact that he has many enemies, that he him self has been feeding the conspiracy theories and that it get such an incredible ammount of coverage in the media. Peoples immagination do the rest.

I will admit that in my mind there is a risc that political motives may be a factor in a case like this, but unless someone provides evidence for it I'm not buying it. Based on what we know so far, I'm simply not seeing how the handling of this case justifies the assumption for political motives.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Leif Roar

Well, for one thing, I doubt it would take place in Sweden. Sweden's justice system is reknown for being open to public scrutiny making it particularly ill-suited for that kind of shenangians, Sweden is still formally neutral and not an ally of USA which, together with Sweden's stance on capital punishment, protection of journalists and whistleblowers and personal freedoms, makes any extradition from Sweden to USA on any kind of espionage charges highly unlikely, and Sweden's liberal and progressive prison system would mean that an incarcerated Assange would by no means be a silenced Assange.

You've seen the cable i posted in #5? An early release. The US diplomats know what "formally" means:

Quote:

Sweden's official security policy is non-participation in military alliances during peacetime and neutrality during wartime. Its active participation in the NATO Partnership for Peace and its role in leading the European Union's 1,500 troops-strong Nordic Battle group give the lie to the official policy. [...] Within the EU, Sweden often takes positions that coincide with our own on issues as diverse as the DOHA round, EU enlargement and Turkey, Swift banking data privacy, and the EU's relationship with Cuba.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by George II

If there are such clear cut evidence for political motives in this case, then somebody should be able to spell it out in a clear cut manner.

It was already done. You just have to apply logic. ftl (welcome!) unraveled it for you (evidence for point 1 was presented by Naomi Wolf):

Originally Posted by ftl

Written out step-by-step, the logic goes as follows:

1) Rape cases are almost always dealt with far more leniently than in Assange's case.
2) Follow-up question - what's different about the Assange case than all the other rape cases? Why is he being prosecuted where lots of other men wouldn't be?
3) It's not the circumstances of the rape - it's not an especially brutal case, it's not an especially easy-to-prove case, the victims aren't unusually famous. Assange isn't a member of a persecuted minority, so that's not it.
4) Conclusion: the only remaining reason why Assange is being treated far more harshly than most people who are accused of rape is because of HIS infamy with regards to WikiLeaks.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

It was already done. You just have to apply logic. ftl (welcome!) unraveled it for you (evidence for point 1 was presented by Naomi Wolf):

Except that 1 is just not true: Sweden do prosecute for rape, and this case hasn't been dealt with particularly stringently -- the only thing stringent about it has been the press coverage.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

You've seen the cable i posted in #5? An early release. The US diplomats know what "formally" means:

Yes, of course. Everyone knows that if push came to shove Sweden would line up with NATO. Still, since Sweden is not formally allied with the USA in any way, it means there is no way a legal argument can be made that espionage against USA is in any way an attack on Swedish interests or security.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Leif Roar

Except that 1 is just not true: Sweden do prosecute for rape, and this case hasn't been dealt with particularly stringently -- the only thing stringent about it has been the press coverage.

Originally Posted by Naomi Wolf

In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven.

Bolding mine. Are you from Sweden, Leif?

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Bolding mine. Are you from Sweden, Leif?

No, from next door, which has a similar legal system and justical culture.

I don't find Naomi Wolf's ignorance on this matter a compelling argument for or against anything: she is not a criminologist nor an expert in legal matters or international police cooperation. She is simply not an authority on the subject and that this is the first case of this nature she has hear of doesn't have to mean anything at all.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Originally Posted by Naomi Wolf

In other words: Never in twenty-three years of reporting on and supporting victims of sexual assault around the world have I ever heard of a case of a man sought by two nations, and held in solitary confinement without bail in advance of being questioned -- for any alleged rape, even the most brutal or easily proven.

This blog post (I have not verified the sources) describes a case where a man was sought by Poland for rape (against kids), where the Swedish courts approved of the extradition. The same type of Interpol system as in the Assange case was used.

Ok, Naomi Wolf could still be correct, maybe she hadn't heard about it. You could of course also say that maybe he wasn't held in solitary confinement before, since he was in jail.

Finding that case took me all of 1 minute of googling.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Leif Roar

I don't find Naomi Wolf's ignorance on this matter a compelling argument for or against anything: she is not a criminologist nor an expert in legal matters or international police cooperation. She is simply not an authority on the subject and that this is the first case of this nature she has hear of doesn't have to mean anything at all.

This is nonsense, Leif. Stop the denial.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Finding that case took me all of 1 minute of googling.

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

This is nonsense, Leif. Stop the denial.

Oh, the irony - it hurts...

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

This blog post (I have not verified the sources) describes a case where a man was sought by Poland for rape (against kids), where the Swedish courts approved of the extradition. The same type of Interpol system as in the Assange case was used.

It took them six years that the man lived free in Sweden before they extradited him. He did not sit in jail without bail. A serial offender who had already served prison time for other cases. Proves the point.