Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Hissyspit

(45,788 posts)
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 04:49 AM Aug 2014

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Says to Leave London Embassy 'Soon'

Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 05:32 AM - Edit history (2)

Source: Reuters

@BreakingNews: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tells press 'I am leaving the embassy, soon' though does not specify on what terms - live video

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says to leave London embassy 'soon'

LONDON | Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:10am EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has spent over two years inside Ecuador's London embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden, said on Monday he planned to leave the building "soon", without giving further details.

Britain's Sky News, part owned by Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox, had earlier reported that Assange was considering leaving the embassy due to deteriorating health.

"I am leaving the embassy soon ... but perhaps not for the reasons that Murdoch press and Sky news are saying at the moment," he told reporters at the embassy in central London, before refusing to clarify his comments.

Asked about his health, Assange said anyone would be affected by spending two years in a building with no outside areas or direct sunlight, a complaint he has made several times before.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0GI0QP20140818

154 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Says to Leave London Embassy 'Soon' (Original Post) Hissyspit Aug 2014 OP
Hopefully he is off to Sweden. Nt hack89 Aug 2014 #1
So he can be indicted for not using a condom during consensual sex? JDPriestly Aug 2014 #4
Unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and rape - those are the actual charges hack89 Aug 2014 #8
An obvious set-up. candelista Aug 2014 #9
If it so obvious than I am sure he will be acquitted by a jury hack89 Aug 2014 #11
You have more faith in Swedish courts than I do. candelista Aug 2014 #12
Participation in judicial proceeding is not optional for obvious reasons. hack89 Aug 2014 #14
There are so many things wrong with your post... candelista Aug 2014 #15
Why would the British want to help him out? hack89 Aug 2014 #16
so, the British passed a "lex Assange" reorg Aug 2014 #23
+1. nt candelista Aug 2014 #25
US has already said they're not contemplating charging Assange Recursion Aug 2014 #97
And you believe this? candelista Aug 2014 #145
And the allegation is: failure to use a condom during consensual sex. Puhhlease. JDPriestly Aug 2014 #18
Read this and tell me how consensual it was hack89 Aug 2014 #20
Crimes admitted by his own attorneys. joshcryer Aug 2014 #31
Wow. And several DUers are defending this. Nye Bevan Aug 2014 #40
Dreamy progressive heroes get a pass on sex crimes I guess hack89 Aug 2014 #49
Sure as hell looks that way.. I don't suppose it would help if they took a step back and Cha Aug 2014 #113
Alleged, he hasn't been convicted of anything. harun Aug 2014 #137
When you have so called progressives minimizing rape and coerced sex hack89 Aug 2014 #139
Well, Sarah Palin doesn't think he's 'dreamy' she wanted him charged as a traitor. sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #141
So the words of a RW TV personality is suppose to mean something? hack89 Aug 2014 #143
A condom was a condition of consent. joshcryer Aug 2014 #30
Based on what evidence? JDPriestly Aug 2014 #69
Assange's own testimony. joshcryer Aug 2014 #116
For sexual assault BainsBane Aug 2014 #50
A woman invites a man she hardly knows into her bed. Their relationship is consensual. JDPriestly Aug 2014 #68
Secrecy in govt is an entirely separate issue BainsBane Aug 2014 #125
Your stance on rape is correct but I say again that once consent is given it is very hard to JDPriestly Aug 2014 #130
Proof is a matter for court BainsBane Aug 2014 #131
I don't think women are responsible for their own assault. But women should be careful JDPriestly Aug 2014 #134
You are not telling the truth here re: your bolded section and the phrase before. Luminous Animal Aug 2014 #132
So he can be indicted for rape. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2014 #87
this has been gone over repeatedly reorg Aug 2014 #95
Nope, you don't get it Spider Jerusalem Aug 2014 #99
uh, I read the whole thing reorg Aug 2014 #100
Clearly you haven't Spider Jerusalem Aug 2014 #103
Oh yes, I did. reorg Aug 2014 #106
Apparently you are incredibly stupid. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2014 #120
So you cannot cite a single instance reorg Aug 2014 #123
That's not what he's being prosecuted for. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2014 #135
I said similar circumstances reorg Aug 2014 #136
It was rejected by the same 'High Court' which refused to hand over mass murderer Pinochet sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #151
One case has nothing to do with the other. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2014 #152
Post removed Post removed Aug 2014 #21
Sorry I gave you a sad face. hack89 Aug 2014 #24
There is some speculation he's trying to use "ill health" as an excuse to avoid extradition MADem Aug 2014 #2
See my post #6. JDPriestly Aug 2014 #5
As I type this there are only five replies in this thread. MADem Aug 2014 #6
Sorry. Number 4. JDPriestly Aug 2014 #34
His own court statements admitted he did it. joshcryer Aug 2014 #32
How often is that crime prosecuted in Sweden? In what percentage of cases? JDPriestly Aug 2014 #33
Sweden takes it very seriously. joshcryer Aug 2014 #37
She doesn't have an STD and she isn't pregnant. JDPriestly Aug 2014 #70
I don't think it's corruption. joshcryer Aug 2014 #117
Until you read the legal documents BainsBane Aug 2014 #51
Do you have a link to the women's statements? JDPriestly Aug 2014 #66
I linked to the Telegraph article and the legal documents BainsBane Aug 2014 #108
Oh heck. You can figure it out. But just to be sure we keep moving here.. elias49 Aug 2014 #13
Well, some people keep more than one thread open--I thought he replied in the wrong thread. nt MADem Aug 2014 #26
I support transparent government. Read the book, Endless Enemies by Jonathan Kwiitny JDPriestly Aug 2014 #19
I'll belive that when I see it.... Blue_Tires Aug 2014 #3
Who? alcibiades_mystery Aug 2014 #7
You are the only one who doesn't know. candelista Aug 2014 #10
Being imprisoned is tough. The 1% has many ways and all the money in the world to destroy Zorra Aug 2014 #17
he isn't being imprisoned, he is there by choice JI7 Aug 2014 #27
If he is "imprisoned" there, how come he is able to announce his decision to leave? (nt) Nye Bevan Aug 2014 #42
Please, don't be deliberately obtuse. nt Zorra Aug 2014 #153
I thought JA had long been in that 1% income bracket? Blue_Tires Aug 2014 #74
So does Lex Luthor. randome Aug 2014 #75
A few one per centers helped him out by posting bail for him treestar Aug 2014 #78
Many prisons out there the 1% keep people in, Cuba, Gaza, Embassy's and of course Regular Prisons harun Aug 2014 #138
I hope he makes it. I wonder why they announced it. pam4water Aug 2014 #22
Better to jump than be pushed? nt MADem Aug 2014 #28
Perhaps the person who was raped might have a different view. Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #29
Yes, if there is such a person. candelista Aug 2014 #35
Who was raped? There were never any such charges, no charges at all as a matter of fact. sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #38
So this is just fine and dandy as far as you are concerned? Nye Bevan Aug 2014 #43
Are you aware that the woman was LYING. That she provided the police with what SHE said sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #44
You again ingore the arrest warrant provided to you BainsBane Aug 2014 #110
Are you aware that the woman was LYING. That she provided the police with what SHE said sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #44
No DNA in the condom that Assange refused to use? Nye Bevan Aug 2014 #46
I had a feeling you knew nothing about this case, thanks for verifying that. The question is, since sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #47
So if his innocence is such a slam-dunk Nye Bevan Aug 2014 #48
Obviously he is evading prosecution BainsBane Aug 2014 #54
No one who is being politically prosecuted can ever assume their innocence is a 'slam dunk'. sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #65
How are you going to spin this when Assange goes to Sweden and nothing happens to him? randome Aug 2014 #71
The same way the people of Steubenville spin their support BainsBane Aug 2014 #112
If that's true, then why not go to Sweden and win and be free forever? treestar Aug 2014 #80
there most certainly were: Here is the warrant BainsBane Aug 2014 #52
Additionally, one of the victims BainsBane Aug 2014 #53
the "girl"? reorg Aug 2014 #81
Even for me? BainsBane Aug 2014 #104
Even for you reorg Aug 2014 #119
"cute and helpless" in expecting an accused assailant face justice? BainsBane Aug 2014 #127
Of course you are correct. Your post was alerted, btw. woo me with science Aug 2014 #57
Thanks. The alerter states this: sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #64
There is an arrest warrant which you ignore BainsBane Aug 2014 #107
Glad you brought that up. There was NEVER ANY NEED for an arrest warrant in this case sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #140
I was reading this site for years before I joined. nilesobek Aug 2014 #111
I follow the evidence in any case. I am not going to fall for the 'use women' routine. The evidence sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #133
The Ecuadorean embassy staff must be pretty sick of him by now Zorro Aug 2014 #36
Or not. Hissyspit Aug 2014 #39
Absolutely. Who would want an unshaven, unwashed Julian Assange shambling about their workplace Nye Bevan Aug 2014 #41
especially the women BainsBane Aug 2014 #55
K&R. And the smear machine rolls on, I see. woo me with science Aug 2014 #56
You mean to smear rape victims BainsBane Aug 2014 #58
The MO of propaganda: repetition of disproven smear over and over again woo me with science Aug 2014 #59
You don't even have a basic understanding of the term 'whistleblower'. randome Aug 2014 #60
Post removed Post removed Aug 2014 #105
So you didn't read the documents BainsBane Aug 2014 #61
Hey, so long as they are on your side, all allegations must be smears, right? Adrahil Aug 2014 #62
"Silence": please explain how Assange's appearing in Swedish court BainsBane Aug 2014 #115
"Serious breach of Julian Assage’s human rights" reorg Aug 2014 #63
59 organizations that refuse to understand how the Swedish legal system works. nt hack89 Aug 2014 #67
Two Swedish organizations, as well as jurist organizations from around the world reorg Aug 2014 #76
All he has to do is go to Sweden hack89 Aug 2014 #77
all you have to do is reorg Aug 2014 #82
I think the Swedes understand their own system just fine hack89 Aug 2014 #84
Why do the UK and Sweden disobey international law? reorg Aug 2014 #85
What obligation under the UN refugee convention hack89 Aug 2014 #86
Why do you ask me? reorg Aug 2014 #89
Assange was not offered political asylum hack89 Aug 2014 #90
No, Ecuador has granted him political asylum reorg Aug 2014 #92
Your own fucking quote says "diplomatic". nt hack89 Aug 2014 #94
You didn't click on the links, apparently reorg Aug 2014 #96
He's such a special snowflake. Being subject to the law, like the rest of us are, in treestar Aug 2014 #79
What does the law say? reorg Aug 2014 #83
Learn the difference between political and diplomatic hack89 Aug 2014 #88
Do you really want to repeat reorg Aug 2014 #91
The UK does not have to respect diplomatic asylum hack89 Aug 2014 #93
no, they are not OAS State Party reorg Aug 2014 #98
Once again, diplomatic asylum is not part of the convention hack89 Aug 2014 #101
yawn, but political asylum is reorg Aug 2014 #102
Here are some good articles on diplomatic immunity hack89 Aug 2014 #109
not interested, not the topic reorg Aug 2014 #114
My links show that you are wrong hack89 Aug 2014 #118
no they don't and no, it isn't politically motivated reorg Aug 2014 #121
Location is the only thing that distinguishes political from diplomatic asylum hack89 Aug 2014 #122
where such a thing exists reorg Aug 2014 #124
It exists - it is not recognized hack89 Aug 2014 #126
I am aware of two such cases: in communist dictatorships reorg Aug 2014 #128
I gave you four other examples in non-communist countries. Nt hack89 Aug 2014 #129
The State Department losing some sway are they? Ash_F Aug 2014 #72
I doubt the State Department has anything to do with it. nt hack89 Aug 2014 #73
Indeed, they are having less and less to do with anything. Ash_F Aug 2014 #142
Kerry is no Hillary when it comes to being SOS, that is true. nt hack89 Aug 2014 #144
Gotten enough attention yet? candelista Aug 2014 #146
Says the person posting an edgy "look at me, I'm a cool kid" comment? hack89 Aug 2014 #147
Ah! Tu Quoque! candelista Aug 2014 #148
It doesn't reach the level of dogs with two dicks, I must admit hack89 Aug 2014 #149
Some express their happiness more vibrantly than others. randome Aug 2014 #150
It's incredible how many authoritarians vehemently hate Julian for blowing the whistle on corrupt Zorra Aug 2014 #154

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
4. So he can be indicted for not using a condom during consensual sex?
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 12:33 PM
Aug 2014

Really! I understand that the potential charges by Sweden are not likely to be pursued. That may be why he is ready to leave.

Talk about he said, she said evidence. The charge would be nearly impossible to prove, Hack89.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
8. Unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and rape - those are the actual charges
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 12:51 PM
Aug 2014

you might be right about him getting off. In any case it is for the Swedish legal system to figure out.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
11. If it so obvious than I am sure he will be acquitted by a jury
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 12:58 PM
Aug 2014

in any case, he has to go to Sweden - or stay where he is. There are no other legal options.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
14. Participation in judicial proceeding is not optional for obvious reasons.
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 01:20 PM
Aug 2014

Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

it is not like Assange has any other options. Can you think of any?

 

candelista

(1,986 posts)
15. There are so many things wrong with your post...
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 01:49 PM
Aug 2014

...that I don't know where to begin. But I'll try.

First, your original claim was that if Assange is obviously not guilty, a Swedish jury will acquit him. That assumes that Swedish juries never convict an innocent person, which is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the Swedish justice system will probably never even try him. He will be turned over to the US to answer more serious charges of violating US secrecy laws. If this happens, he will not get a fair trial.

As far as the new question you raise about Assange's "options," read the article. Here is what it says:

Ecuador's Patino said he would try to hold talks with his British counterpart to resolve the case. Recent changes to British extradition laws may mean Assange would not be facing extradition if his case had just started.
.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
16. Why would the British want to help him out?
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 02:14 PM
Aug 2014

Assange had his extradition hearing, he lost, he skipped bail. So after giving the British legal system a hearty "fuck you" he has the nerve to ask that they forget it all happened and let him go on his merry way? What alternative universe do you live in?

So lets look at the operative words in your little snippet - "may mean" and "if his case had just started". That is a pretty thin thread to hang your hopes on.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
23. so, the British passed a "lex Assange"
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 04:23 PM
Aug 2014

saying:

“There must be a formal charge against a person before their liberty is deprived from them. Those changes have now reached fruition and are now law in this country.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/11041727/WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-to-leave-Ecuador-embassy.html


That's good news! Assange's lawyers had pointed out the problem with the European Arrest Warrant. British politicians and the legal community must have listened. So, the Assange case has apparently led to this very recent change in British law!

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
97. US has already said they're not contemplating charging Assange
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:58 PM
Aug 2014

Which is not surprising, since it doesn't seem he's broken any US laws.

 

candelista

(1,986 posts)
145. And you believe this?
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 01:53 PM
Aug 2014

After all the lies the US government has told you? I like Vivekananda, too. But he wouldn't believe it, either.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
20. Read this and tell me how consensual it was
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 03:49 PM
Aug 2014
Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom.


or

She fell asleep, but was woken up by his penetration of her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered to the effect that he was not.


Those are crimes.






hack89

(39,171 posts)
49. Dreamy progressive heroes get a pass on sex crimes I guess
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:17 AM
Aug 2014

Last edited Wed Aug 20, 2014, 09:26 AM - Edit history (1)

As long as they are also fucking America.

Cha

(295,899 posts)
113. Sure as hell looks that way.. I don't suppose it would help if they took a step back and
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:36 PM
Aug 2014

looked at what they were defending.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
139. When you have so called progressives minimizing rape and coerced sex
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 09:28 AM
Aug 2014

then there is a problem. And that is what the entire "it as just sex without a condom" meme is all about.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
141. Well, Sarah Palin doesn't think he's 'dreamy' she wanted him charged as a traitor.
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 11:28 AM
Aug 2014

The 'fact' that he is not an American citizen didn't deter her calls for the most aggressive prosecution of this 'traitor'. She was supported by most of the Right Wing loonies. But facts never were THEIR strong point. Who needs to look at the facts of a case when there is a 'dreamy progressive hero' who exposed the corruption of Right Wing criminals like Cheney/Bush and the Big Banks to go after?

How is publishing facts about Wall St Corruption 'fucking America' btw?

hack89

(39,171 posts)
143. So the words of a RW TV personality is suppose to mean something?
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 12:09 PM
Aug 2014

we are talking about how some progressives minimize rape and coerced sex in Assange's case when you know damn well they would be screaming bloody murder about rape culture if it was some right winger.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
50. For sexual assault
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:42 AM
Aug 2014

Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Sweden takes sexual assault seriously, and you clearly do not know the facts in the case.

Clearly you have not read the legal document in the case or you would not continue to repeat his bullshit. Those documents have been posted all over this site. There is no excuse to continue to repeat patently false information.4

Arrest warrant http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
UK appeals court decision: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html

Sexual assault is not a joke. The law does not simply apply to those you happen to dislike. Even men you revere are required to seek consent before sex--even when their victim is a lowly woman. Rapists always have people who think they are too good to be charged. That is how generations of rapists were protected in Steubenville until a video tape made it impossible to continue to cover up, and even then most haven't and won't be prosecuted. A woman will always be worth less in this society and an accused rapist will always have his supporters. That is why 25% of women are raped in their lifetimes while very few assailants every see jail. Their defenders make sure of it by making clear that men--rapists--are seen as more value than their victims. People make excuses for why Assange shouldn't have to face the law, just like people in Steubenville did. That is one of the ways that women are denied equality under the law. Sweden is trying to change that by taking sexual assault seriously.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
68. A woman invites a man she hardly knows into her bed. Their relationship is consensual.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:30 PM
Aug 2014

In the morning he wakes up in the same bed with her thinking that she is still a consenting adult. In the morning she either has second thoughts or discovers that he is engaged in activities to which she either did not consent or did not specifically consent. Later, apparently after he has left, she reports to the police that certain aspects of their morning activities were nor consensual. Did a crime occur?

When did the consent of the night before end?

Was that consent conditioned on the use of a condom?

He says that is not the way he understood it. She says he exceeded the terms of her consent.

He says, she says is the crux of the evidence in many if not most rape cases. Since in our British legal tradition, the standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, it is very difficult to prove rape unless you have a video or some physical proof that there was no consent.

Proving lack of consent can be somewhat simpler in cases involving strangers. But here, the alleged victim admitted that she invited the alleged rapist into her home and admitted she consented to sex. It will be very difficult to prove that the consent was limited to sex with a condom unless she made him sign a contract or took a video of her stating her terms.

This is all complicated by the evidence in this specific case including the delay in interviewing the women involved, the alleged internet statements about revenge, etc.

The lesson to be learned: when it comes to sex, both men and women need to be very careful about trusting near strangers. That's the lesson to be learned. I would bet that In this case, Assange may feel more or at least just as violated as the women involved. He thought he had consent. They say he did not. A misunderstanding? Something that was not clarified at the outset? Or truly a vicious crime? An accidental rape? A rape due to a misunderstanding?


As for whether Assange should have been extradited to Sweden, I think the question was whether that was just a means to get Assange into a country with laws that would facilitate rendering him to the US for prosecution. In this case, this question overrides the issue about whether the sex in question was a rape or consensual. Is a potential prosecution in Sweden merely a subterfuge for rendering Assange to the US? Would the Swedish court bother to request extradition of Assange on such a shaky claim were it not for US pressure to try to then render Assange to the US?

I am a critic of excessive secrecy in government. It gives rise to rumors, disenfranchises voters and undermines the integrity of the government. Assange is pursued not because of his sexual conduct but because he has challenged excessive secrecy in government -- and not just in the US. I haven't read a great deal of what Assange has published. But I support his right to publish it and to, thereby, reveal just how excessive our government's secrecy is.

Again, excessive secrecy disenfranchises the people.

Sexual assault is a terrible, terrible thing. But, in this case, it would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And the specific crime of lack of consent for sex without a condom is not illegal in most places.

All men and women should be very careful about the circumstances in which we become involved in sexual relationships. At what point is a consensual act no longer consensual? Very difficult to prove in hindsight.

Sex that is not consensual can hurt the man as well as the woman. That is something to be learned from this case. But another thing to be learned is that charges and innuendo about sexual activities of a political opponent can be used for political purposes. And that may be the case here -- which is why I oppose the extradition and hope Assange will be free soon.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
125. Secrecy in govt is an entirely separate issue
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:58 PM
Aug 2014

Wikileaks is already public. The information has been released, and Assange's standing in Swedish court has no bearing on any of that.

You are very much mistaken about how consent works. Swedish law is quite clear, as is American law. Someone who is incapacitated or asleep cannot consent to sex. It's not that complicated. A women who consents once does not consent in perpetuity. That conception of women as property is no longer supported under the law, which, for example, recognizes marital rape as a crime.

Obviously Assange thought it was perfectly acceptable to penetrate a sleeping woman, to hold her down against her will (as the arrest warrant makes clear, he used force and prevented her from moving) to violate her. That is the nature of a rapist. They believe themselves entitled to women's bodies. People here are supporting the idea that he had rights over women's bodies because he is a great man, more important than the women who have accused him.

Assange is an accused, not convicted, sexual assailant. Proof is a matter for the courts. It is not a justification or evading justice. If he is innocent, he can clear his name in the Swedish courts. Hiding out for two years displays consciousness of guilt, in my view, and it could be used as such under American law.

If sexual assault is so terrible, why are you blaming the victim for the assault on her? Why are you excusing Assange? The lesson in this case is don't rape, seek consent, and don't make excuses for accused sexual assailants because you believe them more important than their victims. I certainly hope you don't intend to act on the version of consent you convey above.

I am a critic of covering up for rapists. I don't give a shit if he is Julian Assange, a football player, the Dalai Lama, or Jesus Christ himself. If a legal complaint is made, the accused is responsible for responding to it. I take that position because I don't believe 25% of women in the West (higher in other areas of the world) deserve to be raped while their assailants operate with virtual impunity. I do so because I will not support violence over justice and male privilege over women's rights to their own bodies. Those are non-negotiables for me. I would think anyone with any concern for equal rights and the nature of the society they live in would feel the same way. It makes me ill that they do not.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
130. Your stance on rape is correct but I say again that once consent is given it is very hard to
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:16 PM
Aug 2014

prove that it was withdrawn. It is very hard to prove that a woman was sleeping. Very hard to prove. We shall see what happens in this case. I am not blaming the victim, but I think that women should do what they can to protect themselves. A woman is not protecting herself when she invites a near stranger into her home and bed. It may be done commonly, but it is not advisable.

Rape is a very serious charge as it should be. It should not be brought frivolously.

A rape conviction ruins a man's life. That is appropriate in cases of sex that is clearly not consensual and in many cases in which consent is difficult to determine. But when a woman invites a man into her home to spend the night, she is making a rape charge, should what she considers to be a rape occur, very difficult to prove.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
131. Proof is a matter for court
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:33 PM
Aug 2014

If your point is true, Assange has nothing to worry about. He has already spent two years in a prison of his own making. Why not face justice and clear his name?

You are blaming the victim. That is what this statement is:

A woman is not protecting herself when she invites a near stranger into her home and bed. It may be done commonly, but it is not advisable.


If you truly believe that, then you must belief Assange to be guilty of the charges. If she needed to protect herself, that suggests there was a threat a violation.

A rape ruins a woman's life. If the man doesn't want his life ruined, he shouldn't rape.

Thankfully, Sweden does not share your view that a woman is responsible for her own assault. They take rape seriously, which is one of the reasons Sweden holds a better ranking on the Gender Gap index.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
134. I don't think women are responsible for their own assault. But women should be careful
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 03:09 AM
Aug 2014

about inviting men they don't know well to stay the night Date rape is common enough without women inviting a near stranger into their homes. Same for men. Good heavens. Is that too much to ask?

Not only should the women have been more careful, but so should Assange. Look at the problems he caused himself.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
132. You are not telling the truth here re: your bolded section and the phrase before.
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 12:17 AM
Aug 2014

Conflate two separate encounters.

#1) Sleeping woman is not the same woman as the holding down woman.
#2) "Sleeping woman" was not actually sleeping according to her own police report. After the night together. she woke up in the morning and had gone out to bring back breakfast for the two of them and laid back down and was half asleep with Assange when he initiated sex. Her complaint was that he initiated sex without a condom, an act to which she acquiesced. When the police altered her statement to say that she was raped. She refused to sign the statement. She. refused. to. sign. the. statement.
#3 ) Held down woman. Her testimony was that they were engaged in foreplay and that she wished to reach for a condom. Her testimony was that Assange was laying on top of her making it impossible to reach said condom. Her testimony says that she did not use WORDS to express desire not to have sex without a condom but rather, gave physical clues... closing her legs, stiffening up... i.e., not that into into it. Her testimony then says, that Assange, recognizing, her NON VERBAL CUES, asked her what was wrong, (HELLO! HE INITIATED THE DIALOGUE TO FIND OUT WHAT HAD GONE AWRY) and when she expressed a desire to use a condom, he complied.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
87. So he can be indicted for rape.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:29 PM
Aug 2014

This has been gone over repeatedly. That you're still unaware that the charges he's facing are in fact charges of rape indicates that you don't really know what you're talking about. (One of the points of his extradition appeal was to determine that the offence constituted rape under British law in that use of a condom was a condition of consent, and that he penetrated the woman while she was sleeping and could not consent.)

reorg

(3,317 posts)
95. this has been gone over repeatedly
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:44 PM
Aug 2014

and you still don't get it.

The Court of Appeal was careful enough to point out that it was neither their obligation nor their endeavor to determine whether the allegations would meet the description of rape under English law. They offered some theoretical considerations and said it could not be dismissed out of hand, but made clear that such determination would entirely depend on the actual facts of the matter which they did not have access to.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
99. Nope, you don't get it
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:02 PM
Aug 2014

the High Court in the UK looked specifically at the issue of "dual criminality", as one of the grounds of challenge for the extradition was that the offence as charged would not constitute rape under the law of England and Wales. This was rejected. http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

On edit: it's not for the UK High Court to rule on the merits of the case against Assange in Sweden, or the evidence, which would have to be presented at trial; only to determine that the indictment was sound and there was cause to extradite.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
100. uh, I read the whole thing
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:18 PM
Aug 2014

not just the puny excerpts you linked. I suggest you do the same so we can continue the discussion on the same level.

As I said, the courts explicitly stated that they were under no obligation to make that determination. They "looked at the issue", as you say, anyway, but kept it vague and reserved final judgement for the appropriate court. As the Magistrates’ Court says:

"I have not thought it necessary or desirable to consider extraneous material. I have looked only at the language used in the warrant."

And the language in the warrant was specifically designed to enable this reading.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
106. Oh yes, I did.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:20 PM
Aug 2014

116 If, contrary to our view, it was necessary to consider the law of England and Wales ...

119 For the reasons we have given at paragraphs 68 and 71 as applied to this offence, we do not consider it apposite to take the statement of SW into account.

68 ... the judge in the executing state should scrutinise the terms of the EAW and make the decision to order surrender on the basis of what is contained in the EAW and not have regard to material extraneous to the EAW. ...

71 In our view, it is not apposite to take into account the material in the prosecution file: ... It is for the Prosecutor not the court to set out what is alleged.

72. ... as the material was put before us de bene esse, we will express our view on what difference it would have made if we had taken it into account in determining whether the description of the conduct was fair and accurate.

120 ... as extraneous material was placed before the court de bene esse, we have considered the fairness and accuracy of the description in the light of that material. (and nothing else).


IOW: Based on the language in the European Arrest Warrant and excerpts from the prosecution material, the court found that IF they had to consider the law of England and Wales, they would have found the description of the alleged unlawful acts in the EAW fair and accurate, i.e. one could make similar allegations of unlawful conduct in England and Wales based on the acts described.

Now, since you apparently are an expert on this: Please cite just one single instance where conduct comparable to what Assange is accused of has led to a case. Wherever, in England or Wales or the US or even Sweden. Who was ever prosecuted for not using a condom, under similar circumstances. I have asked all the other legal experts here, some claim to be lawyers, and no one came up with anything, ever.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
120. Apparently you are incredibly stupid.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:48 PM
Aug 2014

Since he isn't being prosecuted for not wearing a condom, he's being prosecuted for RAPE. Penetrating a sleeping woman who is not in a position to consent to such penetration is RAPE. Full stop. (And there are numerous cases of prosecutions and indeed convictions for the same.)

reorg

(3,317 posts)
123. So you cannot cite a single instance
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:54 PM
Aug 2014

where someone was prosecuted for not using a condom under comparable circumstances?

It would be so easy for a top legal expert such as yourself to cite an example, if it existed.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
135. That's not what he's being prosecuted for.
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 08:13 AM
Aug 2014

Which has been made pretty clear. He is being prosecuted for RAPE, in that he penetrated the woman while she was sleeping and could not give consent. That she consented to intercourse while awake doesn't alter that fact.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
136. I said similar circumstances
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 08:15 AM
Aug 2014

Put up or keep prevaricating.

The alleged offenses stem from situations that don't seem all that unusual. Many men (and women) don't like to use condoms, especially if they know there is little or no health risk. In both situations there is no disagreement whatsoever over whether both partners are willingly engaging in sexual contact. In both cases, the females continue not only with the relationship, but also the sexual intercourse, out of their own free will.

In situation one there is a slight disagreement first, a moment of misunderstanding out of which a politician/lawyer construed a moment of "violence". After that, the condom (its use not having been refused) breaks. The woman in this situation suspects (allegedly, but all indications are that this suspicion only arises several days later) that it was broken on purpose. Impossible to prove, even if it were true. But that's the allegation. The appropriate prosecutor dismisses it. A politician/lawyer manages to get a personal acqaintance and political friend, a more senior prosecutor, to resume the case.

In situation two, after a long night together, and shortly after consensual, protected intercourse, the condom slips. The woman says she wasn't entirely awake at that moment, "half asleep". As soon as she is fully aware, she doesn't stop him. Not out of fear, as she confirms later. She never claims that she was raped. She only agrees to tell this story to the police in order to force the man to take an Aids test. The appropriate prosecutor dismisses the case. A politician/lawyer manages to get a personal acquaintance and political friend, a more senior prosecutor, to resume the investigation.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
151. It was rejected by the same 'High Court' which refused to hand over mass murderer Pinochet
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 04:10 PM
Aug 2014

for trial in several countries, including France and Spain, for crimes against humanity, including murder and torture.

No one ever accused the British Empire of not being kind to Dictators.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
152. One case has nothing to do with the other.
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 04:20 PM
Aug 2014

And honestly? anyone who thinks that Assange's being wanted for trial in Sweden has anything at all to do with some sinister plot by the CIA to bring him to the USA is completely cracked, because it would be a lot easier to've gone through the UK (the USA's closest ally, let's not forget) where Assange was for quite some time and could've been easily arrested if anyone had wanted to.

Response to hack89 (Reply #1)

MADem

(135,425 posts)
2. There is some speculation he's trying to use "ill health" as an excuse to avoid extradition
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:47 AM
Aug 2014

The legal opiners are saying that's a non-starter, as there are good hospitals all over Europe. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28834849

The UK newspaper reports at the weekend said Mr Assange had developed a heart defect and a chronic lung condition during his confinement.

The Australian said the reasons for him leaving were not those "reported by the Murdoch press" - but did not elaborate further.

If he does leave the embassy, Mr Assange faces immediate arrest and extradition to Sweden.

Extradition could take place within 10 days of any arrest - unless there are compelling reasons for this to be extended.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
5. See my post #6.
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 12:36 PM
Aug 2014

Nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone did have consent for sex but did not have consent for sex without a condom. Beyond reasonable doubt???

MADem

(135,425 posts)
6. As I type this there are only five replies in this thread.
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 12:40 PM
Aug 2014

Are you responding in the wrong thread?

You see, I am post six.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
32. His own court statements admitted he did it.
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 09:22 PM
Aug 2014

So that's a non-starter. All one needs to do for evidence is to submit Assange's own sworn testimony.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
37. Sweden takes it very seriously.
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 10:55 PM
Aug 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden

Ironically, had Assange just faced the charges he probably would not have been convicted because it was his word against the woman and she initially just wanted an STD test done.

As it stands now the state is going forward and they have all the evidence they need without her testimony.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
70. She doesn't have an STD and she isn't pregnant.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:36 PM
Aug 2014

This is a political prosecution. It is a means to silence a man who has made politicians around the world very uncomfortable. Our government like many in the world indulges in excessive secrecy. That weakens democracy. It enables corruption. I oppose excessive secrecy.

Secrecy in government in a society with a healthy representative government has to be minimal. Otherwise the electorate is uninformed and votes against its own interests. That is exactly the situation in the US, and excessive secrecy is the major cause for the dysfunction and division in our nation. Those chickens will come home to roost. Mark my words.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
117. I don't think it's corruption.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:46 PM
Aug 2014

I think Sweden's laws on sexual assault need to be adopted everywhere. They have a much higher level of reporting because the women aren't maligned for, you know, being raped, while in every other country, especially the US, women are maligned, insulted as sluts, etc. We already see the women in Assange's case being maligned as CIA spies, whores, etc.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
51. Until you read the legal documents
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:06 AM
Aug 2014

Your comments on what can be proved amount to nothing. You don't even know the charges in the case. You repeat the spin of a privileged man's PR machine as though it were true.

The point of a trial or legal review (Sweden's system is different from ours) is to see if the charges can be proved. If they can't be, he has no reason to continue to evade prosecution. So why are you making excuses for him?

All cases of sexual assault depend on the victims vs. the alleged assailants views. Your comment above would suggest none be prosecuted. In the case of Assange, there are multiple women who report having been violated by him in similar situations. He appears to be a repeat sexual assailant, as many are.

I'm wondering how you even think the condom story would have played out? Do you realize CONSENT is required to have sex with another person? The woman was asleep--passed out--and he violated her. Two women are complainants telling similar stories of assaults that took place on separate occasions. Women do not exist in an automatic state of consent. A man must seek consent before sex. To fail to do so is crime.



JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
66. Do you have a link to the women's statements?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:40 PM
Aug 2014

I understand the facts to be different from your statement.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
108. I linked to the Telegraph article and the legal documents
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:22 PM
Aug 2014

What say you about the evidence provided in those, particularly the warrant of arrest and the UK appellate court finding?

 

elias49

(4,259 posts)
13. Oh heck. You can figure it out. But just to be sure we keep moving here..
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 01:14 PM
Aug 2014

it was #4 the poster was referring to.

Mush you huskies!

MADem

(135,425 posts)
26. Well, some people keep more than one thread open--I thought he replied in the wrong thread. nt
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 05:22 PM
Aug 2014

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
19. I support transparent government. Read the book, Endless Enemies by Jonathan Kwiitny
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 03:42 PM
Aug 2014

published in 1984. (Published by Condon & Weed, Inc.) I bought it at a library sale. The author was a former member of the Peace Corps in Africa who became a journalist for the Wall Street Journal. Too much government secrecy and too little personal privacy are two huge problems in America.

Our secret intelligence agencies and all the 1% machinations and corruption in our government come back to haunt us.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
17. Being imprisoned is tough. The 1% has many ways and all the money in the world to destroy
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 03:06 PM
Aug 2014

anyone who pisses them off.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
75. So does Lex Luthor.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 03:23 PM
Aug 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

harun

(11,348 posts)
138. Many prisons out there the 1% keep people in, Cuba, Gaza, Embassy's and of course Regular Prisons
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 09:26 AM
Aug 2014

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
38. Who was raped? There were never any such charges, no charges at all as a matter of fact.
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 11:07 PM
Aug 2014

How long ago is it now? Even members of the Swedish Govt have demanded that either that prosecutor file her charges or end this charade.

And rape was never the issue. Seems you aren't aware of the evidence that turned out to be a lie in this case. This has put the woman who stated that she was not raped, or sexually assaulted, through HELL.

Anyone who cares about women would never have done this to her. Her brother said she was devastated, not over Assange, but over what went on using HER to do it.

I read these threads and I know WHO cares about women and who does not.

There are STILL no charges filed, it is an OUTRAGE that someone can be treated this way for TELLING THE TRUTH.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
43. So this is just fine and dandy as far as you are concerned?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:59 AM
Aug 2014
Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom.


She fell asleep, but was woken up by his penetration of her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered to the effect that he was not.


Is this a Whoopi Goldberg style "rape-rape" versus "rape" distinction?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
44. Are you aware that the woman was LYING. That she provided the police with what SHE said
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:39 AM
Aug 2014

was the condom he supposedly ripped. That the condom she provided had NO DNA from Assange, and it was not ripped. Her story fell apart long ago which is why no charges have been filed.

In fact the lawyer who inserted himself into the case AFTER it was thrown out by the main prosecutor, the one who was PUSHING all of this, admitted that if this case EVER got to court, Assange would win. Coming from the man most responsible for reopening the case himself has admitted 'we cannot win this case'. So rather than take it to court and LOSE they chose instead to drag it out with a million excuses, all of which have been totally debunked.

The world knows this was a set-up. You are way behind with your 'proof'. When the main 'witness' has been proven to be a liar on one of the most important aspects of a case, NO CHARGES are filed. Which is exactly what happened here.

The other woman has stated that lies were told about HER complaint, by the police. So there is no case which is why we have never seen any charges.

This is a case of trying to silence the press, pure and simple.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
110. You again ingore the arrest warrant provided to you
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:25 PM
Aug 2014

After first pretending you care so much about the victim you now accuse her of lying. You have no idea if she is truthful or not. What we do know is there is a standing arrest warrant for Assange that charges him with criminal assault and an order of extradition by the UK courts.

That you insist she is lying is more blather on your part to shame her and cover for her alleged assailant.

You have no evidence. You provide no evidence. Shaming and attacking an alleged victim is not evidence.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
44. Are you aware that the woman was LYING. That she provided the police with what SHE said
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:39 AM
Aug 2014

was the condom he supposedly ripped. That the condom she provided had NO DNA from Assange, and it was not ripped. Her story fell apart long ago which is why no charges have been filed.

In fact the lawyer who inserted himself into the case AFTER it was thrown out by the main prosecutor, the one who was PUSHING all of this, admitted that if this case EVER got to court, Assange would win. Coming from the man most responsible for reopening the case himself has admitted 'we cannot win this case'. So rather than take it to court and LOSE they chose instead to drag it out with a million excuses, all of which have been totally debunked.

The world knows this was a set-up. You are way behind with your 'proof'. When the main 'witness' has been proven to be a liar on one of the most important aspects of a case, NO CHARGES are filed. Which is exactly what happened here.

The other woman has stated that lies were told about HER complaint, by the police. So there is no case which is why we have never seen any charges.

This is a case of trying to silence the press, pure and simple.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
47. I had a feeling you knew nothing about this case, thanks for verifying that. The question is, since
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 02:10 AM
Aug 2014

you clearly have no clue about the evidence in the case, how can you possibly form an opinion?

Here, let me help you. The woman claimed that Assange WAS wearing a condom. She also claimed that he 'deliberately ripped it'. She further claimed to have 'saved' that evidence. Naturally she was asked to provide it. The rest is history, as is this case. There will NEVER be charges filed in this case, as we all predicted years ago.

Lots of facts are known about this woman, were from the start. Clearly you are not aware at all that this case was over long ago mainly because when a witness lies and is caught redhanded, not to mention other facts about that witness that became public, there is no case. But then, that was never the point of all this, the point was to silence Wikileaks which exposed corruption and lies in governments, including our own.

My heart goes out to the other woman who was dragged into this against her will. I hope she gets her wish that this case goes away. She won't make a very witness for the prosecution as she was outraged about the lies told about HER by the police, claims she never made and said so.

SHE is one most harmed by all of this. Your lack of empathy for this young woman who was pretty traumatized by all of this is sad.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
48. So if his innocence is such a slam-dunk
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 02:20 AM
Aug 2014

why did he hole himself up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for 2 years as opposed to going to Sweden to quickly clear his name?

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
54. Obviously he is evading prosecution
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:00 AM
Aug 2014

The other poster's story is bizarre and comports in no way with the facts of the case.

She and others have made a point of refusing to examine any of the actual evidence in the case and take the statement's of Assange's lawyer, in an early version of his appeal, as fact. Even the lawyer has backed off many of those statements, but they won't. Facts and evidence are meaningless here. Assange is a great man and his victims are inconsequential, as is the truth, clearly.

I posted the arrest warrant with the charges they claim don't exist in another post in this thread.



sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
65. No one who is being politically prosecuted can ever assume their innocence is a 'slam dunk'.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:30 PM
Aug 2014

See Don Siegelman eg.

Secondly, again your lack of knowledge of the facts of this case is stunning.

I am not going to go back over every detail of this case, but Assange no only did NOT flee Sweden, he remained there far longer than his planned trip and WAS INTERVIEWED by the Swedish police.

He attempted to contact the NEW prosecutor several times in order to speak to her. Apparently she was too busy, odd coming from a prosecutor whose own words regarding sexual assault case were well known, 'that it is imperative that the accused be interviewed as quickly as possible once the allegations are made'.

So, the question is, WHY DID THE PROSECUTOR REFUSE TO INTERVIEW Assange while he was remaining in Sweden specifically for that purpose?

He delayed his trip to London but was unable to reach the prosecutor. His attorney contacted the Prosecutor himself, and was told that it would be okay for Assange to go to London as she could not interview him right then. THEN he left.

But that was not the end of it. Assange, through his attorney, offered to return to Sweden to speak to her. That offer too was not accepted.

And then, ignoring all his attempts to speak to her, a Red Alert was put out on him, something that hasn't been done for murderers and terrorists.

Now what would you think if you had taken all this steps only to see yourself painted as a fugitive when nothing of the sort had occurred.

I think at that point he realized the danger he was in if he were to return to Sweden. Which is currently under the leadership of what is referred to in Europe as 'Europe's Ronald Reagan'. Who also happens to be a friend of Karl Rove, who coincidentally was in Sweden around this time, airc, avoiding a Congressional Subpoena himself.

These facts are well known to those who have followed this case.

No charges have been filed, many people predicted all along that charges and a trial would never occur considering the evidence already known.

What is sad is how quickly people are willing to condemn someone who they do not like personally and throw Justice to the winds, ignoring any fact that contradicts their personal narrative.

More than one year ago I was also attacked for saying I did not believe charges would ever be filed. So far, that prediction has turned out to be true and I could not care less about attacks from anyone who has not taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with the facts of the case.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
71. How are you going to spin this when Assange goes to Sweden and nothing happens to him?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 01:42 PM
Aug 2014

You'd better be working on that now. Maybe he made the evil U.S. Government cower in abject fear that he might say something unflattering about them?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
112. The same way the people of Steubenville spin their support
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:33 PM
Aug 2014

for the accused rapists they consider more important than their victims. The way those who cover for rapists always spin. Excuse after excuse, ignoring evidence and fabricating. The only difference is the identity of the accused and the fact a video has not yet surfaced--as was the case in Steubenville for generations while rapes when unpunished. Football players, guys with websites, the crucial point is that men they admire should not be held accountable under the law to mere "lying" women.

The crucial point is that Assange is too important to be held to justice over a mere woman. Men like him don't need consent. Their supporters believe them entitled to anything and everything they want, including human beings. This is precisely why rapists operate with virtual impunity. Everyone who excuses an accused assailant believes him innocent. What all have in common is willful disregard for the lives of alleged victims and determination to dismiss evidence to excuse the person they think too important to be brought to justice.

Assange does not need to prove his innocence. He only needs to go to Sweden and stand before the court to see if the state can prove his guilt. If not, he is free.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
80. If that's true, then why not go to Sweden and win and be free forever?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 05:40 PM
Aug 2014

Oh, yeah, the big bad US is going to grab him and send him to Gitmo. Well of course there is proof of that.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
52. there most certainly were: Here is the warrant
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:39 AM
Aug 2014

Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1)

There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant:
1.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are
described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf


These documents have been posted on this site repeatedly. You have had them brought to your attention before. It's bad enough you defend an accused sexual assailant, but that you then turn around and tell someone they don't care about women because they expect an accused sexual assailant to face the legal charges against him?

You are not the arbiter of which women deserve justice and which do not. That you proclaim yourself as the one person who cares about women is beyond the pale. Thankfully, I do not count on you to look after my rights.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
53. Additionally, one of the victims
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:55 AM
Aug 2014

Talked about how she had been stalked, harassed and bullied by Assange's supporters. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/i-was-targeted-after-i-made-assange-sex-crime-claim-says-accuser-of-wikileaks-founder-8613006.html

The idea that those who want to see Assange face the legal charges pending against him are responsible for the girl's trauma is insulting beyond belief

Her original blog post has also been posted on this site many times, along with the findings of the UK court of appeals. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html

If you read as much as you say, you would have had many opportunities to read the documents that prove your version of events is false. In fact the one you tell is an early version of Assange's story as told by his lawyer but since backed away from.

If you claim to have read so much on this, how did you not see the victim's own account or this report in the Independent? How did you not the arrest warrant or legal documents by the UK Court giving the reasons for authorizing Assange's extradition to Sweden? How if you claim to know so much and yet have not read any of the legal documents in the case?

reorg

(3,317 posts)
81. the "girl"?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 05:53 PM
Aug 2014

Did I just catch you labelling a thirty-something professional and feminist politician

[font size="3"]a "girl"?[/font size="3"]

[font size="4"]a "girl"?[/font size="4"]

[font size="5"]a "girl"?[/font size="5"]

The woman in question is a University graduate. She wrote a thesis on "post-communist" Cuban political parties and was kicked out of Cuba for this. Which might serve as a recommendation for working with the CIA and affiliated groups, I suppose. Whatever her motives for jumping in bed with a prominent political activist on the first day they met, belittling her as a "girl" is a bit over the top, I think. Even for you.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
104. Even for me?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:14 PM
Aug 2014

Because I so often belittle women?

You're right. I used a poor word choice, one I would not like to have myself called. I made a mistake. You consider that more offensive than excusing her accused rapist and/or insisting she is lying? Did you read the documents? Do you care about the facts in the case?

And "even for me"? What is that supposed to mean?

reorg

(3,317 posts)
119. Even for you
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:47 PM
Aug 2014

and your transparent attempts to portray victims on behalf of whom you are going to battle as cute and helpless as possible, even at the risk of belittling the person in question.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
127. "cute and helpless" in expecting an accused assailant face justice?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:07 PM
Aug 2014

Yes, I used a poor word choice. I live under patriarchy and am influenced by that, as is everyone else in this society. It came out in my use of a word. That was unfortunate, but it does not nearly as defining an accused rapist, as many here have done. Seeking justice does not make women weak. They have a right to have their cases heard. That some continue to convey women asserting their rights as "victimhood" or "helplessness" conveys an idea that women must remain silent, allow men to do as they please--suffer and bear it. That is not strength, that is victimhood, and your assertion that my wanting the same justice they have demanded under the law portrays them as helpless is completely offensive to them.

I would wager if you ask any of those women which they consider worse, calling them a "girl" or making excuses for their rapists, their answers would conflict with your assertions.

If you were so concerned that the alleged victims not be portrayed as helpless, why did you not criticize the poster insisting that the prosecutors had taken advantage of the victim, and that oh the poor woman was ravaged by seeking justice? I think the answer to that is clear. Your concern has nothing to do with the women in the case.

You clearly are put out that anyone suggest Assange be held accountable for the complaint against him. You have no evidence to counter the legal proof, so you turn to transparent personal attacks. That in the process you claim to care about the women in the case is unconscionable.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
57. Of course you are correct. Your post was alerted, btw.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:20 AM
Aug 2014

The community recognizes an attempt to silence when they see it.

On Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:50 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Who was raped? There were never any such charges, no charges at all as a matter of fact.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=874198

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Insults another poster and engages in rape apology. The arrogance of this post insisting SHE, Sabrina is the ONE who cares about women while outright lying about the fact there aren't charges against Assange. She claims to have read all the threads. The legal documents with the charges have been posted many, many times. She has been shown them and continues to tell false versions from Assange's lawyer. She insults a poster who knows the facts in the case as not really caring about women because the other posters wants to see Assange face the charges pending against him. That she then makes up some bullshit that there are no charges (see the warrant: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=874337 ) claiming that people who want justice are harming the victim when in fact it is Assange's supporters who have harassed and shamed her.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:59 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter is way out of line.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Welcome to the Internet where many people have different opinions about "evidence." This is NOT rape apology, and alerting does not make anyone an expert. Unless alerter is a paid professional working on the Assange case, alerter is just another poster with an OPINION that others on a DISCUSSION BOARD are free to disagree with - LEAVE IT.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think you are reading way too much into this. Please just refute the poster. The jury system isn't supposed to be used to get your point across.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: based on the alerters proof provided in the explanation and the post in this thread, I would have to say that is rape apologia. hide.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.



sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
64. Thanks. The alerter states this:
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 11:56 AM
Aug 2014
The legal documents with the charges have been posted many, many times


No charges have ever been filed against Assange. What we have seen are ALLEGATIONS with no evidence produced by the prosecution. There IS a difference between ALLEGATIONS and CHARGES.

So now you get alerted on for STATING THE FACTS.

The other FACT I stated, and will repeat, is that the woman who claimed that Assange 'ripped the condom on purpose' produced a condom that had never been used, no DNA from Assange. Perhaps when you have a witness who lies about a pertinent allegation in the case, it makes it difficult for the prosecutor to CHARGE anyone. That is just one of the FACTS about this case.

Shameful that the jury system is being used to alert on what are known facts about this case.

1) The alerter is wrong, we have NOT seen 'charges' we have seen 'allegations'.

2) A key piece of evidence provided by the woman herself, contradicted her own assertions.



BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
107. There is an arrest warrant which you ignore
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:21 PM
Aug 2014

That has been shown to you on multiple occasions. You insisted the case was over years ago. The UK court document makes clear it has STALLED because of Assange's fleeing from justice. \

You have not been truthful. The fact you avoid all legal documents in the case shows as much. When people decide to ignore facts to suit a predetermined opinion. All because a great man is accused of a sexual assault and people think him too important to face justice.

The ONLY reason there are not formal charges are the nature of the Swedish justice system. The UK appellate court addressed that issue and said for all intents and purposes there are the equivalent of valid charges and hence the extradition order.

How is it do you suppose extradition is ordered without any official filing of criminal complain under Swedish law?

The fact is you do not care. The fact is you willfully ignore the evidence.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
140. Glad you brought that up. There was NEVER ANY NEED for an arrest warrant in this case
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 11:17 AM
Aug 2014

because Assange was always available to the Prosecution.

1) After the first attempt to frame him by the police who broke Sweden's law there by going to one of Sweden's most reactionary right wing tabloids, claiming there was a 'rape', think Breitbart and O'Keefe, the case was thrown out and
an investigation of who was responsible for this in the police dept, considering that the top Prosecutor there was not even aware of the 'case', was initiated.

The prosecutor threw out the entire mess because there WAS NO CASE, which she stated clearly.

Then a certain radical attorney inserted himself into the case claiming to represent both women. Curiously this lawyer believes that the state can over ride a woman's opinion, decision etc, (one of the women stated clearly there was no rape and was devastated by her treatment by the police) and forced himself on her as her representative regardless.

This attorney forced a reopening of the case with a different prosecutor.

Assange, meantime, had gone voluntarily to the police and was interviewed by them. He was NOT arrested. He then postponed his trip to London and remained in Sweden attempting to speak to this new Prosecutor. She was 'not available, too busy'.

Finally his attorney contacted her office asking for an interview so that his client could continue his journey. She 'could not meet with him' she stated, 'too busy' so he should continue on his journey to London and she would get in touch with him later. Doesn't sound like she was following her OWN well known belief system that 'in a sexual assault case the accused should be interviewed as quickly as possible'.

Assange took her advice and left for London. From there he again contacted her office to say he would return to Sweden to speak to her AGAIN. Again she did not accept that offer.

So, as everyone who actually followed this case FROM THE BEGINNING saw, it was clear that Assange AND his attorney made attempt after attempt to speak to this woman and that over and over again, she did not speak to him.

The police however HAD and saw no reason to arrest him.


As we watched these events unfold people around the world wondered WHY a prosecutor who had a reputation for promoting instant if possible, interviews in such cases, was refusing to do so in this one.

And THEN something amazing happened. An arrest warrant, a 'red alert' was issued, something you don't see even for terrorists.

Now why did that happen when the person was available all the time for an interview both in Sweden and in London and had been refused that interview?

I do not like it when women are used or political purposes. It incenses me frankly as a Feminist. Same old story, MEN using WOMEN for political purposes.

And we know, as an aside, that Karl Rove was in Sweden around that time visiting his good friend who he helped get elected over there, and avoiding a subpoena over here.

This whole thing stinks and has from the beginning.

The arrest warrant was political theater and nothing more. Fortunately the world was watching and most knew from the start what was really going on.

In fact people predicted long ago there would be no charges in this case. There are still no charges, there is much more I could go into but there is no need as a majority of people around the globe view this as what it is, an attempt to silence the press, using WOMEN to do so.

Arrest warrants, impeachments that are politically motivated, mean nothing to me, although I believe those who use the judicial process this way should be prosecuted.

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
111. I was reading this site for years before I joined.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:27 PM
Aug 2014

This is not a new tactic. Some are knowingly pitting progressive groups against each other. The old "divide and conquer strategy."

Some are participating unwittingly, because they sincerely believe in whatever progressive cause is being maligned, others have a more shrouded agenda in their clannish attacks. So far, DU is doing a pretty good job of letting the system flush itself.

I won't fall for that trap. If he sexually assaulted a woman then he needs to pay. However, if this is a CIA railroad job I hope he gains his freedom and his health because I stand with the whistleblowers.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
133. I follow the evidence in any case. I am not going to fall for the 'use women' routine. The evidence
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 12:45 AM
Aug 2014

so far shows that there never was a need for any arrest warrant since Assange remained in Sweden, was interviewed by the Swedish Police AND made several attempts to speak to the prosecutor who was 'unavailable'. Finally when his attorney did reach her, tried to make an appointment, she wasn't 'ready' or was 'busy' but told him his client could leave Sweden to go on to what had been his destination, London.

After returning to London, again Assange offered to return to Sweden but was told to wait. And then, the arrest warrant was issued. When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc etc.

Not to mention that prior to any of this, after Assange stated in an interview that he had information on a major Bank that 'could bring that Bank down', Wikileaks released a document from the CIA in which a discussion about how to silence him took place. Several ideas were discarded but one that was mentioned was, 'a sex scandal' which would destroy his reputation.

Following the evidence, when documents were released that had been sent to the Defense from the Prosecution, the ripped condom was included. It was there it was learned that the woman who had claimed to have saved the ripped condom, handed it over to the police. It was ripped, but there was no DNA found. What that indicates is that woman attempted to fabricate evidence to fit her story.

Now it is years later and still, no charges have been filed. All opportunities to speak to Assange to complete the process, have been turned down by the Prosecutor, so most rational people have already decided what this is really all about.

There is no case, there are no charges and most likely there never will be. The mission has been accomplished to some extent, otoh, this situation only confirms how desperate those in power are to silence the Press.

Zorro

(15,691 posts)
36. The Ecuadorean embassy staff must be pretty sick of him by now
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 10:29 PM
Aug 2014

That's likely the story behind the story.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
41. Absolutely. Who would want an unshaven, unwashed Julian Assange shambling about their workplace
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 12:00 AM
Aug 2014

in a bathrobe, coffee mug in hand, stealing food from the refrigerator and angrily denouncing the evil Brits, Swedes and Americans to anyone who will listen?

Congrats to the embassy staff on their upcoming liberation!

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
56. K&R. And the smear machine rolls on, I see.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:16 AM
Aug 2014

The level of desperation to smear and silence is directly proportional to the seriousness of the crimes revealed by the leaker.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
58. You mean to smear rape victims
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:25 AM
Aug 2014

Indeed. Rape culture is indeed pervasive and this case is a perfect example, much like Steubenville before a video was uncovered. What do two women's lives mean in comparison to a great man anyway. Why should he have to worry about something as trivial as consent when we are only talking about lowly women.

Here are documents in the case.

Arrest Warrant outlining the complaint. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

Finding of the UK Court of Appeals ordering Assange's extradition to Sweden on charges of sexual assault on two separate victims. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html

An article recounting one of the victim's statements about how she has been bullied, harassed, and shamed by Assange's supporters. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/i-was-targeted-after-i-made-assange-sex-crime-claim-says-accuser-of-wikileaks-founder-8613006.html

As long as people think men they admire should be above the law, women remain second class citizens.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
59. The MO of propaganda: repetition of disproven smear over and over again
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:45 AM
Aug 2014

until those telling the truth are simply weary of having to repeat it. I encourage anyone who is unfamiliar with the history of this case to read the many, many previous threads exposing the facts in this case and the shameless MO of the propaganda machine.

The level of resources used to smear and silence, and the filth of the tactics used to smear, are directly proportional to the gravity of the crimes revealed by the whistleblower.

Corruption, oligarchy, warmongering and relentless smear propaganda directed at anyone who exposes the crimes. People are beyond sick of it.





 

randome

(34,845 posts)
60. You don't even have a basic understanding of the term 'whistleblower'.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:05 AM
Aug 2014

It isn't someone who trafficks in stolen goods. That's called a 'fence'.

None of which is relevant to Assange's Swedish problem.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Response to randome (Reply #60)

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
61. So you didn't read the documents
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:10 AM
Aug 2014

Obviously. What are you afraid of finding out?

Exactly how does Assange's facing charges in Sweden keep anything silent? Wikileaks is already public.

If you ever decide to read the documents, you will see that the version of events told around here as gospel truth are actually Assange's attorney's argument in the first appeal, one they have since backed off of. Even Assange's defense admits facts of this case you all insist are fabricated.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
62. Hey, so long as they are on your side, all allegations must be smears, right?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:06 AM
Aug 2014

You see it over and over with the Assange/Snowden/Greenwald fan club. Many of the fan club seem to feel obligated to support these men, regardless of the circumstances.

There are certainly those willing to smear no matter what, the reality is that almost no one is perfect all the time. It is entirely possible that that Assange is both an advocate for transparency (at least in the west...) AND an egotistical bastard capable of rape (and yes, if the woman consented to sex with a condom but not without a condom, then Assange having sex with her without a condom is rape).

So, yes, beat your self-righteous chest. But in my view, honesty admits its flaws.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
115. "Silence": please explain how Assange's appearing in Swedish court
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:40 PM
Aug 2014

silences anything. The Wikileaks disclosures have been public for years now.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
63. "Serious breach of Julian Assage’s human rights"
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:41 AM
Aug 2014
... Fifty-nine human rights and legal organization have submitted a petition to the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review on June 15 seeking to remedy what they see as Sweden’s “violation” of Mr. Assange’s human rights in not charging him for four years, during which time he has experienced different levels of pre-charge detention.

Another petition, signed by 33 unions, media and civil society organisations, has been handed over to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva asking for its immediate intervention on Mr. Assange’s behalf. ...

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/wikileaks-founder-says-hell-leave-embassy-soon/article6328584.ece?homepage=true

reorg

(3,317 posts)
76. Two Swedish organizations, as well as jurist organizations from around the world
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 05:09 PM
Aug 2014

Two Swedish organizations, as well as jurist organizations from around the world including the American Association of Jurists (AAJ), the National Lawyer’s Guild (NLG), the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), and the Indian Association of Lawyers submitted two reports —one in English and one in Spanish— each highlighting various procedural rights violations of Julian Assange, Sweden’s longest running case of pre-trial deprivation of liberty.

A third report, signed by 33 human rights groups, media and civil society organisations, and unions, including the Global Women’s March (Marcha Mundial das Mulheres, MMM), petitioned the Human Rights Commission in Geneva to intervene to free the ’political prisoner’, Julian Assange.

[font size="3"]"The methods employed by the prosecutor in Mr. Assange’s case are a clear violation of his fundamental human rights, yet they remain beyond the reach of judicial review.”[/font size="3"]
  • American Association of Jurists (AAJ)
  • Arab Lawyers Union (ALU)
  • Association des Avocats Africains Antillais et Autres de France (5AF)
  • Association Droit Solidarite
  • Bangladesh Democratic Lawyers Association
  • CAGECHARTA 2008
  • European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH)
  • Eva Joly Institute for Justice & Democracy (EJI)
  • Giuristi Democratici Italy (Italian Democratic Lawyers Association)
  • 
International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)
  • Indian Association of Lawyers
  • Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais sem Terra (MST)
  • National Lawyers Guild (NLG)
  • National Union of People’s Lawyers of the Philippines


[font size="3"]“the Swedish Authorities’ demand that Mr. Assange be physically present in Sweden for questioning... would imply that Mr. Assange would have to renounce his inalienable right (to the protection afforded by his asylum in relation to the United States), but also means in practice that Mr. Assange would have to risk his life and physical integrity”.[/font size="3"]
  • ILOCAD
  • Asociación Latinoamericana de Derecho Penal y Criminología
  • The Center for Justice & Accountability
  • Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España
  • Comité de Apoyo al Tíbet
  • Fundación Internacional Baltasar Garzón
  • Instituto Mexicano de Derechos Humanos y Democracia A.C.
  • Colectivo de Abogados "José Alvear Restrepo"
  • Vortex
  • Unión de Juristas Independientes de Andalucía


[font size="3"]"The entire international community has witnessed the opportunistic manipulation of the accusations against Mr. Assange, in an attempt to destroy his reputation and to prevent his freedom and his ability to act politically. It is obvious that this unprecedented situation has not come about as a result of the alleged acts committed in Sweden, but rather due to the clear political interference by powerful interests in response to Mr. Assange’s journalistic and political activities. This situation has turned Julian Assange into a political prisoner, who is effectively condemned to house arrest without any charges having been brought against him, without being able to exercise his right to due process."[/font size="3"]
  • Articulação de Empregados Rurais do estado de MG (ADERE-MG)
  • Asamblea Nacional de Afectados Ambientales - México
  • Associação de Rádios Públicas do Brasil (ARPUB)
  • Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT)
  • Confederación de Trabajadores de la Economia Popular - Argentina
  • Consulta Popular - Brasil
  • Executiva Nacional dos Estudantes de Biologia (ENEBIO)
  • Federação dos Estudantes de Agronomia do Brasil (FEAB)
  • Fora do Eixo
  • Fórum Nacional pela Democratização da Comunicação (FNDC)
  • Frente Popular Darío Santillán (FPDS - Argentina)
  • Fundación Pueblo Índio del Ecuador
  • Grupo Tortura Nunca Mais – Rio de Janeiro
  • Intersindical Central da Classe Trabalhadora
  • Jóvenes ante la Emergencia Nacional – México
  • Coletivo Juntos! - Por outro futuro
  • Levante Popular da Juventude
  • Marcha Mundial das Mulheres (MMM)
  • Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens (MAB)
  • Movimento Nacional de Rádios Comunitárias (MNRC)
  • Movimento de Mulheres Camponesas (MMC)
  • Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores (MPA)
  • Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST)
  • Movimiento de Liberación Nacional – México
  • Movimiento de Trabajadores Excluídos – Argentina
  • Organización de Solidaridad de los Pueblos de África, Asia y América Latina (OSPAAAL)
  • Pastoral da Juventude Rural (PJR)
  • Red Nacional Communia
  • Rede Ecumênica da Juventude (REJU)
  • União Nacional dos Estudantes (UNE)
  • União da Juventude Socialista (UJS)
  • União da Juventude Rebelião (UJR)
  • Sindicato Unificado dos Petroleiros de São Paulo


https://wikileaks.org/59-International-Organizations.html

hack89

(39,171 posts)
77. All he has to do is go to Sweden
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 05:20 PM
Aug 2014

Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

And he will be charged. Not complicated. That is why he ran - he is scared of facing justice.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
82. all you have to do is
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 05:56 PM
Aug 2014

get an education on the law and human rights. Maybe at some point down the line you can seriously discuss these issues, beyond your silly talking points.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
84. I think the Swedes understand their own system just fine
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:08 PM
Aug 2014

So do the British, who afforded him two years of due process.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
85. Why do the UK and Sweden disobey international law?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:15 PM
Aug 2014
Why do the UK and Sweden disobey international law?

The United Kingdom says it has a treaty obligation to extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden even though he has not been charged with an offense. There is a conflict between the United Kingdom’s obligations to the 1951 UN refugee convention and its obligations under the European Arrest Warrant system. It is established law that these conflicts are to be resolved in favour of the higher obligation which is to the 1951 convention.

Rather than following international law, the United Kingdom has chosen to interpret the conflict in favor of its geopolitical alliances. The United Kingdom has a history of breaking international law in this manner, for example, in its invasion of Iraq, its cooperation with US rendition operations, and its facilitation of global mass spying via its intelligence service GCHQ. Sweden is also a party to these last two violations.

Eva Joly

http://www.swedenversusassange.com/

hack89

(39,171 posts)
86. What obligation under the UN refugee convention
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:18 PM
Aug 2014

Do you think is being ignored? Careful - this is a trick question.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
89. Why do you ask me?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:10 PM
Aug 2014

I cited the MEP and former judge Eva Joly, who mentioned the convention and would be much better qualified to give you the appropriate reply.

I am not a legal expert, but it has been obvious from day one that the UK is preventing the government of Ecuador to take up its own obligations towards Assange who has claimed asylum in Ecuador and was recognized by this country as a refugee, whose "life or freedom would be threatened on account of his (...) political opinion", were he returned to the country where he faces these threats.

So, technically, I assume, the obligation is on Ecuador and not the UK, but since they both signed the convention, both should be under the obliation not to interfere with each others duties. The UK courts had decided that the European Arrest Warrant was valid (although following recent changes in British extradition law today they would probably not come to the same conclusion). However, as Ms Joly points out, "It is established law that these conflicts are to be resolved in favour of the higher obligation which is to the 1951 convention."

http://www.swedenversusassange.com/

hack89

(39,171 posts)
90. Assange was not offered political asylum
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:17 PM
Aug 2014

He was offered diplomatic asylum. They are not the same. Diplomatic asylum is not universally recognized by international law - it is only used by South American countries.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
96. You didn't click on the links, apparently
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:54 PM
Aug 2014

Ecuador forcefully rejected pressure from Britain and announced Thursday that it was granting political asylum to Julian Assange,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ecuador grants WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange political asylum
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-political-asylum-ecuador

Julian Assange granted political asylum by Ecuador; Britain maintains extradition pledge
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-granted-political-asylum-by-ecuador-britain-maintains-extradition-pledge/2012/08/16/414c66c8-e7a5-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

The differentiation between "political" and "diplomatic" is immaterial, since the UK is not a signatory to the OAS convention. But the asylum was still granted, due to "political persecution", and is therefore exactly the same as what is described in the Convention on Refugees.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
79. He's such a special snowflake. Being subject to the law, like the rest of us are, in
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 05:39 PM
Aug 2014

his case is a "serious breach of human rights."

reorg

(3,317 posts)
83. What does the law say?
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:03 PM
Aug 2014
What does the law say?

International law says that a sovereign country has decided to recognise Mr. Assange as needing protection from political persecution on humanitarian grounds. Mr. Assange has a right to meaningfully exercise that protection through passage to Ecuador. Ecuador invoked a number of applicable conventions, including the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. The United Kingdom and Sweden are also parties to the 1951 Convention and are obligated to recognise the asylum decision of Ecuador. While both states have been careful to avoid saying that they do not recognise the asylum, their actions can only be interpreted as a wilful violation of Mr. Assange’s right to ’seek, receive and enjoy’ his asylum. In international law, the obligation to protect persons from persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention prevails over extradition agreements between states.

http://www.swedenversusassange.com/

hack89

(39,171 posts)
88. Learn the difference between political and diplomatic
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:59 PM
Aug 2014

Asylum and you will understand why your post is wrong.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
91. Do you really want to repeat
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:25 PM
Aug 2014

all these semi-educated little quibbles here? They don't serve any other purpose than keeping the thread kicked.

The British authorities can continue to demonstrate to the entire world their craven allegiance to the US. Or they might listen to their own people for a change:

"It’s absolutely ridiculous, that money should be spent on frontline policing. It’s completely wasted."
- London Mayor Boris Johnson

"It’s absolute madness... either somebody else has to pay - that is, the Swedish authorities - or we just have to back off and stop guarding the embassy. It is ludicrous."
- Baroness Jenny Jones, deputy chair of the Police & Crime Committee at the London Assembly

It is unfair for taxpayers to continue to fund this farce. The time has come for the Met to review its strategy on Assange, and withdraw the officers currently guarding the Ecuadorian embassy."
- Former Scotland Yard royalty protection chief Dai Davies

http://www.swedenversusassange.com/

hack89

(39,171 posts)
93. The UK does not have to respect diplomatic asylum
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:32 PM
Aug 2014

It is not a quibble - it is international law with ICJ case law to back it up.

The British are showing that no one can disrespect their judicial system. They gave him two years of due process and he gave them a hearty fuck you when he got a verdict he didn't like.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
98. no, they are not OAS State Party
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:00 PM
Aug 2014

and therefore not under obligation to adhere to OAS treaties.

But they signed the Convention on Refugees, and, according to the MEP and former Judge Eva Joly, "It is established law that these conflicts (obligations under EAW and Convention on Refugees) are to be resolved in favour of the higher obligation which is to the 1951 convention."

http://www.swedenversusassange.com/

hack89

(39,171 posts)
101. Once again, diplomatic asylum is not part of the convention
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:19 PM
Aug 2014

There is international case law on the matter.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
102. yawn, but political asylum is
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:23 PM
Aug 2014

and if Ecuador grants asylum for political reasons, it doesn't matter one bit if there are special provisions for other OAS states to adhere to. Non-OAS states still recognize that Ecuador has granted political asylum.

If you want to cite legal precedents contradicting what Ms Joly says, go ahead and cite them.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
114. not interested, not the topic
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:40 PM
Aug 2014

I quoted the MEP and former judge, a legal expert, Ms Joly. Not on "diplomatic" this or that, but on political asylum. Ecuador has granted asylum for political reasons. That is the matter in question. There is no question about it.

According to Ms Joly, the fact that Ecuador has granted asylum must be respected by the UK. You did not cite any precedent to the contrary.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
118. My links show that you are wrong
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:46 PM
Aug 2014

It is not political asylum because it is politically motivated. It is political asylum if it met the legal definition of political asylum. Assange's case does not meet that definition. Because it was granted in London, it is diplomatic asylum.

reorg

(3,317 posts)
121. no they don't and no, it isn't politically motivated
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:50 PM
Aug 2014

and it doesn't matter one bit where Assange was when it was granted.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
122. Location is the only thing that distinguishes political from diplomatic asylum
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:54 PM
Aug 2014

tell you what - why don't you give me the correct definition of diplomatic asylum

hack89

(39,171 posts)
126. It exists - it is not recognized
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:07 PM
Aug 2014

The were plenty examples of situations just like Assange where asylum seekers spent years in embassies because the host nation had no legal obligation to recognize the granting of asylum.

Did you read the ICJ ruling on diplomatic asylum?

reorg

(3,317 posts)
128. I am aware of two such cases: in communist dictatorships
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:12 PM
Aug 2014

Great precedent, but it's par for the course for authoritarians, I suppose.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
147. Says the person posting an edgy "look at me, I'm a cool kid" comment?
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 02:23 PM
Aug 2014

this is a discussion board. We are suppose to discuss things. Sometimes there are actually people that disagree with you.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
150. Some express their happiness more vibrantly than others.
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 03:30 PM
Aug 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
154. It's incredible how many authoritarians vehemently hate Julian for blowing the whistle on corrupt
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 04:40 PM
Aug 2014

government practices, corrupt corporate practices, and, in their minds, making their dearly beloved leader look bad.

I could not imagine going through life hating people who justifiably call out and expose the nasties done by those in authority; personally, I admire whisteblowers.

Conservatives have always been like that, I suppose; for conservatives, it is not the corrupt action of the authority that is the crime, it is exposing the corruption that is the crime.



Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»WikiLeaks Founder Julian ...