Moderated: Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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.

So, to disprove it then, it has to be an Australian, known to the world, that specifically went from Sweden to England, where it took 2-4 months to handle the extradition then? Or are there other conditions that has to be fulfilled?

Goalposts - see them move...

[Here_to_learn]

Held without bail: Irish priest accused of rape fights extradition, wants bail

Six year hunt by two countries.

In Solitary Confinement

Yes, just googling, unverified sources.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

This is nonsense, Leif. Stop the denial.

What denial? Wolf isn't an authority here. Seriously. She isn't. That she believes that this prosecution has been harsher or more stringent than, well, pretty much any other rape prosecution ever, doesn't make it so.

Sure, maybe it's unprecedented to send out an Interpol red notice and European arrest warrant so that a rape-suspect can be held for questioning. I don't know -- I'm not an expert on Swedish police procedures or Interpol notices. However, neither is Wolf and so she doesn't know, either.

Without knowing what's usual when it comes to Interpol red notices and European arrest warrants, how can you say that this is unusual? I haven't seen any evidence or authoriative comment (which Wolf's comment emphatically is not) supporting the notion that the red notice or arrest warrant is actually extraordinary -- just a lot of people asserting that it is.

[babycondor]

Since I'm the one who started this part of the discussion by claiming that "no matter how you look at it Assange is a political prisoner," I thought I would chime in.

I've learned a lot here, primarily that it was extremely naive of me to use the words "no matter how you look at it"!

Since there is no clear and generally accepted definition of the term "political prisoner," we get the type of discussion that's been going on here for the last couple of days: opinions, biased perspectives, anecdotes, etc.

Wikipedia: "...political prisoners are arrested and tried with a veneer of legality where false criminal charges, manufactured evidence, and unfair trials (kangaroo courts, show trials) are used to disguise the fact that an individual is a political prisoner. This is common in situations which may otherwise be decried nationally and internationally as a human rights violation or suppression of a political dissident. A political prisoner can also be someone that has been denied bail unfairly, denied parole when it would reasonably have been given to a prisoner charged with a comparable crime, or special powers may be invoked by the judiciary. Particularly in this latter situation, whether an individual is regarded as a political prisoner may depend upon subjective political perspective or interpretation of the evidence."

Assange has just been granted bail. The story continues.

[A Laughing Baby]

Assange has been granted bail.

[Thunder]

he hasn't left jail yet.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

No.

I want the case to come to trial and get the facts on the record.

Until that moment I am not going to speculate that either of these women is lying about being raped.

We are trying the VICTIMS here, and it's unseemly.

[Undesired Walrus]

How did he manage to take a photograph of himself in a police van (Presumably cuffed) and send it to the outside world?

[babycondor]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

How did he manage to take a photograph of himself in a police van (Presumably cuffed) and send it to the outside world?

1. Can you post the photo you are asking about?

2. It could be done with a camera-enabled smartphone, although tricky if you're handcuffed.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

How did he manage to take a photograph of himself in a police van (Presumably cuffed) and send it to the outside world?

Check out the two photos at the top of this article at svd.se.

[babycondor]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Check out the two photos at the top of this article at svd.se.

Both of those appear to have been taken from outside the van.

The Daily Mirror (I can't post a link, Google "assange daily mirror") has a red-tinged photo of Assange with his hand raised to his face, one finger alongside his nose, apparently taken from outside the tinted window of the police van. He does not appear to be handcuffed.

Depending on the context, body language experts might interpret this gesture as indicating deception. To me, it almost looks like he is intentionally signalling something. Fascinating.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by babycondor

... To me, it almost looks like he is intentionally signalling something. Fascinating.

Well, that is pretty close to a Masonic recognition sign...

But I think the truth is that he is sending the message that his real name is Santa Claus.

Quote:

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk,
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;
He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

[babycondor]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Well, that is pretty close to a Masonic recognition sign...

But I think the truth is that he is sending the message that his real name is Santa Claus.

Good one!

[qayak]

Well, Australia has announced that Assange didn't violate any of its laws when he released the current batch of information so I guess that means he isn't a rapist.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by 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).

I see no evidence of that. Did the courts actually review evidence or only a warrant in which the prosecutor used their own words? I'm pretty sure the UK courts were only going by what was written up in the warrant.

But even if true, in the US we have numerous examples of the court decisions now being politically influenced by judges installed by the right wing extremists in our country.

In this case, we have a number of companies influenced by pressure from someone, government or big banks, who knows, that deprived Wikileaks of access to funds and a web domain without any charges being filed or formal accusations like being labeled a terrorist group. And even if/when the US declares Wikileaks a terrorist group, since when is that legitimately applied to a political group as opposed to a group which actually carried out some terrorist act?

Come on people, political dissent is not terrorism!!!!!!! Even Gates says no one died because of the leaks.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Leif Roar

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.

So because the ulterior motive isn't obvious to you, there must not be one?

This is all about a run of the mill Swedish broken condom sex case?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

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.

Freedom of information and a free press are key elements in a successful democracy. Whether Wikileaks provides access to information we should all have in order to know if our government is making the decisions we the public would want our government to be making, especially given the fact we have troops fighting in Afghanistan and recently, Iraq, is not as important as the principles involved.

So, I agree with you, I've yet to see evidence Assange's leaks have threatened American lives.

But on the left, our government's reaction borders on threatening freedom of the press.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Held without bail: Irish priest accused of rape fights extradition, wants bail

Six year hunt by two countries.

In Solitary Confinement

Yes, just googling, unverified sources.

I fail to see the similarities here.

A priest charged with raping a 15 year old boy is not sex without a condom.

A man accused of, "attempting to rape and sodomize a relative at her home and trying to rape a child who was also at the home" is not consensual sex without a condom.

A cop accused of, "...attending the University of North Texas when he allegedly ambushed, beat and raped a female student."

Your first supposed analogy linked in an earlier post was about a man being, "held on suspicion of repeatedly raping his two daughters will now be extradited to his homeland."


These are ridiculous comparisons and prove my point, not yours. Assange is being treated like a man accused of raping his children, raping other children, and beating a woman during a rape.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

No.

I want the case to come to trial and get the facts on the record.

Until that moment I am not going to speculate that either of these women is lying about being raped.

We are trying the VICTIMS here, and it's unseemly.

I've not said the women are lying, for the record. I've said the prosecutor appears to have taken great liberty rewording what these women actually initially said.

Seems to me rather interesting to be taking the prosecutor's word for the evidence and at the same time discounting Assange's lawyers' accounts as biased and unreliable.

When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along
by Melbourne barrister James D. Catlin, who acted for Julian Assange in London in October.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So because the ulterior motive isn't obvious to you, there must not be one?

This is all about a run of the mill Swedish broken condom sex case?

It's not about a "broken condom."

These are the charges:

Charge 1) Unlawful coercion. Alleges that Assange is used his body weight to hold Miss A down in a sexual manner.

Charge 2) Sexual molestation. Alleges that Assange molested Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

Charge 3) Sexual molestation. Alleges that Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

Charge 4) Rape. Alleges that Assange had sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

No mention of a broken condom at all, and the rape part is emphasized for you in case you missed it.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by qayak

Well, Australia has announced that Assange didn't violate any of its laws when he released the current batch of information so I guess that means he isn't a rapist.

How does not violating laws in Australia clear him of having sex with a sleeping woman?

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So because the ulterior motive isn't obvious to you, there must not be one?

No, but without first seeing evidence of an ulterior motive I am not going to presume there is one. You know, like a good skeptic and all.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I've not said the women are lying, for the record. I've said the prosecutor appears to have taken great liberty rewording what these women actually initially said.

As you're still going on about the "broken condom", I question whether you know enough of what either the women or the prosecutor has said to be able to make that kind of judgement.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Leif Roar

No, but without first seeing evidence of an ulterior motive I am not going to presume there is one. You know, like a good skeptic and all.

OMFSM!

No ulterior motive? Like Assange is just your run of the mill criminal, no one could possibly have any political motive in trumping up a minor charge into a federal case about?

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

OMFSM!

No ulterior motive?

No presumtion of an ulterior motive without some evidence for one, no. I fail to see why that should be a surprising position to hold, least of all here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Leif Roar

As you're still going on about the "broken condom", I question whether you know enough of what either the women or the prosecutor has said to be able to make that kind of judgement.

Here is the problem. I have the 'dis'advantage of having read about the charges over a month ago after the initial prosecutor dropped the charges as baseless. It would seem many people in this thread have only read the revised new prosecutor's version.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Leif Roar

No presumtion of an ulterior motive without some evidence for one, no. I fail to see why that should be a surprising position to hold, least of all here.

Let's be clear here. Your claim there is no evidence of a political prosecution is false. The actual fact is you don't accept the evidence as convincing. That's fine, but claiming there is no evidence is a lie.

You and Phantom Wolf keep claiming that renewing charges which were dropped in AUGUST only after the more recently leaked State Department dispatches is "no evidence of political motive". You deny that Assange's lawyers' accounts of the events are evidence of political motive. You deny that the ridiculous initial denial of bail and aggressive extradition requests considering the actual charges being in excess of the norm is evidence of a political motive.

I can accept your conclusion this evidence is not convincing to you. But your BS repetition that no evidence exists is evidence you are suffering from brain block.

So how about being honest and admitting you are not impressed by the evidence, rather than continuing to keep up this denial that there isn't any evidence?

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Here is the problem. I have the 'dis'advantage of having read about the charges over a month ago after the initial prosecutor dropped the charges as baseless. It would seem many people in this thread have only read the revised new prosecutor's version.

Ugh. Yes, there's been a lot of shoddy and half-done reporting on this case, but by now there's enough information made its way into even the English-speaking press that there's no reason to cling to old errors. BBC has a good timeline of the case.

The "broken condom" issue concerned one of the charges of sexual molestation and not the more serious charge of rape.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Let's be clear here. Your claim there is no evidence of a political prosecution is false.

None has been brought forward so far, at least. The timing is certainly enough of a coincidence that it's reasonable to take a closer look at the case to look for signs of political meddling, but on its own it doesn't mean much and when one does look closer at the case, nothing more seems to emerge.

Quote:

The actual fact is you don't accept the evidence as convincing. That's fine, but claiming there is no evidence is a lie.

So what is the evidence that indicates or suggests a political motive behind this prosecution? Could you just give a point-by-point list of what you find damning?

Quote:

You and Phantom Wolf keep claiming that renewing charges which were dropped in AUGUST only after the more recently leaked State Department dispatches is "no evidence of political motive".

Well, it's not. There are other plausible explanations for that, including one which we know occured: the appeal by the girls' lawyer. It's always possible that there was also secret political pressure being exerted on the prosecutor, but no evidence has presented that suggests this was the case.

Quote:

You deny that Assange's lawyers' accounts of the events are evidence of political motive.

Which particular claims in those accounts do you feel suggest or indicate the existance of political pressure?

Quote:

You deny that the ridiculous initial denial of bail and aggressive extradition requests considering the actual charges being in excess of the norm is evidence of a political motive.

Well, yes. There are other, plausible explanations for that, including the one that was given by the court, that it feared Assange might abscond. There's also the point that this decision was then overturned which, while it doesn't disprove anything, certainly suggests that if there were political pressure to deny Assange bail, it couldn't have been all that efficient.

Quote:

So how about being honest and admitting you are not impressed by the evidence, rather than continuing to keep up this denial that there isn't any evidence?

No, I still don't see any evidence for political pressure. None of the factors you've posited actually suggests or indicate political pressure; they're all better explained by other causes.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Let's be clear here. Your claim there is no evidence of a political prosecution is false. The actual fact is you don't accept the evidence as convincing. That's fine, but claiming there is no evidence is a lie.

You and Phantom Wolf keep claiming that renewing charges which were dropped in AUGUST only after the more recently leaked State Department dispatches is "no evidence of political motive". You deny that Assange's lawyers' accounts of the events are evidence of political motive. You deny that the ridiculous initial denial of bail and aggressive extradition requests considering the actual charges being in excess of the norm is evidence of a political motive.

I can accept your conclusion this evidence is not convincing to you. But your BS repetition that no evidence exists is evidence you are suffering from brain block.

So how about being honest and admitting you are not impressed by the evidence, rather than continuing to keep up this denial that there isn't any evidence?

We deny that they are "evidence of political motive" because they have all been explained by those involved without the need for political motive to be added in.

renewing charges - done on the request of the woman's lawyer.
Assange's lawyers' accounts of the events - Are they really going to come out and say their client is guilty?
You deny that the ridiculous initial denial of bail - It wasn't ridiculous.
aggressive extradition requests - The prosecutor has explained why they went that road and why they couldn't do it otherwise.

All of these things are explained, there is simply no need to add shadowy puppetmaster figures into the whole thing.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I see no evidence of that.

So ignorance of what really happened.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

But even if true,...

But you still have your mind made up.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I fail to see the similarities here.
[...]
These are ridiculous comparisons and prove my point, not yours. Assange is being treated like a man accused of raping his children, raping other children, and beating a woman during a rape.

You do remember why I brought these example up do you? It was in response to this quote:

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.

You see where it says "any alleged rape", and "never heard of a case".

So I found cases where a man was held in solitary confinement. Where a man was denied bail. Where a man was sought by two nations. But as I as said earlier, the goalposts maybe includes that he had to be Australian, and had to we known worldwide and so on. If so, could you please state exactly what conditions need to apply before we can dismiss Naomi Wolf statement as irrelevant.

Then of course, in the end he wasn't denied bail, and from what I can understand was held in solitary confiment on his own request.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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.



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.

He waited in Sweden for a month, then told them he was leaving, they offered him no opposition. When they told GB they wanted him, he surrendered himself voluntarily. He is not worried about the Swedish charges, he is worried it is just a pretext to get him to the US. The politicisation, demands that he be kept in solitary, with no bail, the trouble they have gone to then they showed no interest in keeping him in the country when he told them he was leaving, indicate it is political.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

He waited in Sweden for a month, then told them he was leaving, they offered him no opposition. When they told GB they wanted him, he surrendered himself voluntarily. He is not worried about the Swedish charges, he is worried it is just a pretext to get him to the US. The politicisation, demands that he be kept in solitary, with no bail, the trouble they have gone to then they showed no interest in keeping him in the country when he told them he was leaving, indicate it is political.

No, you're assuming it's political and then fitting the facts to your theory and ignoring the reasons given for these things.

When he left Sweden there were no charges, the women's laywer asked for the case to be reopened after he'd left. Why would the prosecution have complained about his leaving before they reopened the case? Should they have prevented his leaving in case they had to reopen the case?

Next, keeping in in solitary. Why wouldn't they do this? He's wanted for questioning, he's not even on remand, so why would you risk putting him general population? And apparently it was his request.

Next, no bail. This has been beaten to death. The UK court explained this one, there were fears that he'd go into hiding and/or leave. Courts regularly deny bail to flight risks. That he's been released now under strict conditions that prevent his flight is an indication that they were doing exactly what they said.

The only way to possible consider that this is political is to assume it is political to start with, and then ignore or deny all the evidence it isn't based on those people lying because it's political. This is not skeptical thinking, in fact it's exactly the opposite, it's absolutely classic CT thinking.

[Here_to_learn]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

He is not worried about the Swedish charges, he is worried it is just a pretext to get him to the US.

Just out of interest (I'll probably regret asking this many times over...) - why would him ending up in Sweden increase the risk that he is sent to the US, compared to for example the current situation with him being held (ok, on bail) in the UK?

Is Sweden considered more likely to cooperate with the US than UK is, or what is the reasoning?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

How does not violating laws in Australia clear him of having sex with a sleeping woman?

What are you, some sort of conspiracy theorist? If a person is innocent of one crime, they are innocent of all crimes.

Free Assange Now!!!

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Here_to_learn

Just out of interest (I'll probably regret asking this many times over...) - why would him ending up in Sweden increase the risk that he is sent to the US, compared to for example the current situation with him being held (ok, on bail) in the UK?

Is Sweden considered more likely to cooperate with the US than UK is, or what is the reasoning?

Under the terms of an EAW the surrendering country (the UK) has to approve any further handing on of the surrendered person. So in fact Extradition from Sweden is harder than from the UK as both Sweden and the UK would have to approve it, whereas currently only the UK does.

Of course extradition to the US relies on them finding a law he broke and proving that they had juristriction at the time of the law being broken, something that is going to be extremely hard on both acounts, and if done would set a prescedence that would send shockwaves across the internet.

Can you imagine what would happen if the Chinese turned around and demanded a US Citizen because they has created a falun gong website that was considered anti-Chinese Government?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Naomi Wolf rests the case today:

Her article is really quite stupid. Aside from her terrible selection of examples (why she thinks mass sex crimes in the midst of war in collapsed societies has any bearing on the legal process in one of the most strongly anti-rape nations on earth, I don't know), the guts of her argument comes down to a lack of convictions.

Rape, inherently, is difficult to convict, because it most often comes down to the victim's word against the defendants. Other witnesses and physical evidence are very rare.

The mere fact that so many western countries have been reforming the way courts deal with rape trials (some are even considering the rather extraordinary step of altering the burden of proof!) in order to secure more convictions totally undermines the entire basis of Wolf's argument.

If anything I think western countries take rape too seriously, resulting in very high rates of false accusation, as evidenced by many studies.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The politicisation

The only people politicising this case are Assange and his supporters.

[Childlike Empress]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Her article is really quite stupid.

Nope. You're just trying to offer escapes enabling the gullible to stay in denial. Boring and irrelevant.