When ever we read new articles about Sweden vs Assange, we have to keep in mind that the wishes of the two women in the dcase is not represented by any side.
This does make this case a bit strange. The woman in this case went to the police in order to ask them if it was possible to force a person to take a HIV test. While there she explain how she was half-asleep when Assange initiated un-safe sex, and when she heard about his other sexual partners a few days later she became concerned. When she contacted Assange about a HIV test, he brushed the concept off, which is why she were there at the police station asking them for help.
The result was by all reports (ie news papers), not what she wanted. They charged Assange for rape, which resulted in that she broke of any communication with the police and prosecutor, and refused to sign the written report from the police station.
Now, criminal case do not need that the woman agree with the charges, but it makes for a strange case. It also makes one ask for whose benefit this case is all for. All the men and women who is half-asleep when initiated by sex from a partner they previously that day/night had sex with?
In the 1990s, Micheal Jackson was being investigated for child sexual abuse. He settled out of court with the family of a boy, and they dropped the charges, meaning the case fell apart. California (/USA?) changed the law so that the child/family cannot choose to drop charges like that, and they went after Jackson again.
If the victim of a crime can often be pressured/forced into dropping cases, there can be good reasons to prevent the victim from doing it, to ensure justice is done.
If pressure or force is applied, then yes that would server justice.
But this case is not about a woman that got pressured or forced to dislike the case. Her objective, and her statements has so far been very clear on that point. We have to actually admit that a woman can, as a person, disagree with the decision of the prosecutor.
A child sexual abuse is distinctly different in that a child is normal not held to be able to make that decision. We assume that either the family or the state will do it for them. I strongly object bunching together women and children as individuals that need to have their decision been made by someone else, as that reeks of old-style sexism.
> Her objective, and her statements has so far been very clear on that point.
Yes. They very clearly made accusations in statements to the police, hired a high-profile lawyer to very aggressively press the case after the initial decision to close it and did not retract the allegations.
One of them (the one the Assange defense team claims expressed reluctance to pursue the case in unseen correspondence) got fed up with that lawyer, fired him, and ended up with another one who issued the following very clear statement of her position:
My client has the right to her day in court for the rape she's reported to the police and for which Assange is today suspected of. She has the right as a plaintiff to have her case tried in a customary way in accordance with the Swedish judicial system.
The rape Assange is suspected of has left deep scars and meant a serious violation of her personal integrity. The violation is especially serious and the psychological symptoms are there every day. Assange's behaviour and prolonging of the preliminary investigation in this case exacerbate the suffering of my client when the preliminary investigation does not move forward. The wait is long and the suffering great.
Speculations in the media have been many and directly erroneous. This preliminary investigation is about suspicion of rape for the part concerning my client. There is no form of conspiracy as has been claimed by the media. My client is both a plaintiff and a crime victim just as many others I represent daily in numerous cases. Her rights as a plaintiff shall not be forgotten in the process.
> hired a high-profile lawyer to very aggressively press the case after the initial decision to close it and did not retract the allegations.
hmmm, got source for that statement? Hiring laywers is the exception in Sweden, and the common method is for the state to provide one to everyone involved.
In this case however, it seems that lawyers are being paid by outside parties or provided pro-bono. That means to me that I will take such statements with a slight of salt in favor of direct statements from the person herself. There is a bit too much media circus to take such statements as representable of their client, when the client is not the person paying the bill...
> "While there she explain how she was half-asleep when Assange initiated"
The charge is that she was asleep, not "half-asleep", and woke up when he was penetrating her.
"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. She felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue"
That must have been lost in translation, because the quoted part which got "leaked" to newspapers had the word "half-asleep" in them. The alternative would be that the news papers edited the direct quotes of the woman. I do however find that unlikely.
If I have to speculate, I would think that the prosecutor makes no distinction between half-asleep and asleep. It easier just to leave that part to the courts.
I think its high likely that the UK high court judgment is based on the accusations made by the prosecutor, which, like I said previous, might have simply made no distinction between half-asleep and asleep.
The distinction is less important when deciding arrest warrant, but still relevant when discussing the charges.
>It also makes one ask for whose benefit this case is all for
Other people Assange, or others in society, may want to violate without a condom for his own pleasure at the expense of his partner's well being.
>All the men and women who is half-asleep when initiated by sex from a partner they previously that day/night had sex with?
As per the accusation, Assange purposely penetrated her without using a condom against her wishes while she slept. Previous sex isn't permission for future sex. And certainly not unprotected sex because he doesn't like condoms but managed to catch her with her guard down.
Please be clear that you are describing two different women in two different events in that statement. The rape charges has nothing to do with "holding a woman down".
What you are referring to is the second women which the case states that "Mr Assange must have known", just before he asked what she was doing in middle of sex. A lovely logical statement if I ever seen one. Maybe he should have known, but that's is not the same as "must have known".
The funny "sex without a condom" case is the actual rape charge.
4. Rape
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] 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.”
Thanks for the link. I really feel like many people here understate the nature of his accused crimes out of misguided hero worship. The guy can do good things for spreading information and at the same time rape women who believed him to be a friend.
For my part, I think it is pretty clear that Assange acted like a total asshole, whether or not he did anything that amounts to a crime. But at the same time, the whole case stinks enough that one does not need to like Assange, to find it peculiar. One does not even need to think he's innocent.
I don't particularly think it is likely the US is involved. I think a more likely scenario is that Marianne Ny - the prosecutor - wanted to use this case for her own goals, and set an example with Assange, and underestimated how his fear of the US would mess the whole thing up.
And from what we've seen so far, the case seems shaky at best: A he-says / she-says where in the case of a trial, the prosecutors may be unable to even produce a signed statement from one of the women; will face a lot of questions regarding the multiple procedural violations; will have to explain the womens attitude to Assange after the alleged offences and so on. The chance of conviction is tiny even without those problems.
Extradition is easier from the UK than Sweden. If he was in Sweden, you'd need the Swedish and UK govs to agree. If he was in UK, it's just the UK gov who needs to agree.
>And from what we've seen so far, the case seems shaky at best: A he-says / she-says where in the case of a trial, the prosecutors may be unable to even produce a signed statement from one of the women; will face a lot of questions regarding the multiple procedural violations; will have to explain the womens attitude to Assange after the alleged offences and so on. The chance of conviction is tiny even without those problems.
You just described every rape case ever that isn't a masked-stranger-in-a-dark-alley attack.
There are multiple offenses for which Assange will be charged when he is delivered to Swedish custody.
Being pedantic about how Sweden charges suspects will not change the fact that two separate women accused Assange of sexual assaults and Swedish authorities extradited him.
The two women have not accused Assange of sexual assault. Ever.
They merely went to the police and asked if it was possible to pressurize him to submit to STD testing.
The accusations of rape are done by an overzealous prosecution office that has hijacked the case later; it seems they have the right to do that. That the office chose to make the accusations augmented by descriptive statements from the two women gives the impression that the two are the accusers. Both (or at least one, supported by the other) have since requested that the issue be dropped.
To see the entire arguments of the prosecution and the defense in today's session, read the liveblog[1] by Falkvinge (now ended, of course).
Jul 16 18:08 - VERDICT: Julian Assange is to REMAIN in detention in absentia. Just announced.
Looks like an overzealous persecutor found himself in front of an overzealous judge. Combined with the English courts agreeing as well that he be extradited. Quite an international conspiracy!
Or maybe professionals doing their job can see enough evidence exists supporting the accusation that he raped and assaulted women to bring him before a court for trial.
>The two women have not accused Assange of sexual assault. Ever.
The two victims described sex crimes for which the Swedish government has chosen to accuse Assange of committing.
>They merely went to the police and asked if it was possible to pressurize him to submit to STD testing.
If merely walked into a police station and said someone stabbed me with a dirty syringe and I'd really just like to know if he's HIV positive it wouldn't be up to me if the police device to go find him and the prosecutor decides to charge him with assault. Replace dirty syringe with penis.
>Looks like an overzealous persecutor found himself in front of an overzealous judge. Combined with the English courts agreeing as well that he be extradited. Quite an international conspiracy!
This is perhaps the second most politically persecuted person in the western world, after Snowden. Do you really find it so implausible that his persecution would not be overzealous, especially with a Five Eyes collaborator and Sweden, which has extremely close intelligence ties to the US?
>If merely walked into a police station and said someone stabbed me with a dirty syringe and I'd really just like to know if he's HIV positive it wouldn't be up to me if the police device to go find him and the prosecutor decides to charge him with assault. Replace dirty syringe with penis.
Except that people don't stab others with dirty syringes as often as they have sex with each other, and neither are the two remotely related, so you're comparing apples to oranges. If someone simply asks the police if it is possible to force an HIV test, the police should perhaps obtain a court order to get something such done instead of filing a case of sexual assault.
> Victims don't get to dictate justice.
If a woman feels she was raped/not raped, the only opinion that matters there is hers (from a common decency POV). I do not know what Swedish law says in this regard.
Let me expand on my downvote: putting aside the issue of sexual assault entirely, Assange has made enemies of several major intelligence agencies. Leaked documents discuss “the start of an international effort to focus the legal element of national power upon non-state actor Assange, and the human network that supports WikiLeaks”. Assange is indisputably the target of one or more international conspiracies.
He might also be a rapist, but it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the conspiracy angle offhand.
It's dehumanizing to the victims to dismiss allegations of sexual assault because of a convenient theory that aligns with your politics. While it may be your version of Occam's Razor to assume that this is an internationally-coordinated plot against him, I find it much easier to believe that a person with a lot of public self-regard could be guilty of one of the most common crimes committed by humans: acquaintance rape.
What's really frustrating is watching people conflate Assange with Wikileaks and defend the individual as if he's the organization. It causes people who are skeptical of rapists and cult-of-personality individuals to be made out to be anti-whistleblowers and that's not fair. I think Wikileaks operates best as an anonymous organization and not under the control of a figurehead.
I dismissed no allegations. Let me put this as clearly as possible: Assange is a target of multiple powerful intelligence agencies, all with world-class experience executing dirty tricks. Having the figurehead of Wikileaks charged with an abhorrent crime, guilty or not, is very much in the interest of these groups. Not because Assange matters, but because of the backlash you describe in your second paragraph.
Personally, I think they didn't have to lift a hand. Assange discredited himself, with his own actions. But it's an indisputable fact that Assange is the target of one or more agencies whose job it is to conduct internationally-coordinated plots. If you want to ignore the possibility of foul play that's your choice, but don't pretend that you're standing up for truth and justice by making assumptions.
> A Swedish court has ruled that an arrest warrant against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on charges of sexual assault will stay in place.
This article uses certain terms very loosely and irresponsibly.
No "charges" have been brought against Assange (yet). The prosecution claims to want to question him, but has turned down offers to do so in the embassy or remotely.
Indeed, this FUD-like assertion about "charges" keeps floating about so much that the Wikipedia article about the case has an explict section[1] about that.
The FUD-like assertion about "the prosecution claims to want to question him, but has turned down offers to do so..." keeps floating about so much that the paragraph immediately below in that very same Wikipedia article expresses the actual position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish legal procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in custody before the charge is formally made (ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order to allow them the opportunity to charge him with sexual offences and not simply because they "want to question him" (iii) based on information they presently have he will be charged once he ceases evading arrest, unless he provides them with a very good reason not to.
"Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries"
> expresses the actual position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish legal procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in custody before the charge is formally made
My statement that the prosecution has refused offers to question him by other easy means is entirely factual and not FUD-like. Perhaps I should not have used that acronym, it triggers too many strong reactions. ;-)
You yourself quote from the Wikipedia article that the "brought into custody" requirement is, in fact, not a requirement of the Swedish legal procedures, but is the position of the prosecution. The legality of said requirement/interpretation is, among other things, up for debate in this proceeding.
> (ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order to allow them the opportunity to charge him with sexual offences and not simply because they "want to question him"
In Swedish law, "charges can be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning". Questioning him is a prerequisite to placing charges. Of course they want to charge him, but that is another matter. They need to jump through the proper hoops.
>(iii) based on information they presently have he will be charged once he ceases evading arrest, unless he provides them with a very good reason not to.
Wrong (AFAIK).
1. A whole round of questioning and presentation of reasons has to be done before you can charge someone. I am not an lawyer, but this is what Swedish law requires, apparently. The burden of reasonable suspicion is on the Prosecution, not the Defense.
2. It is yet to be decided, legally speaking, if Assange has been evading arrest. One argument presented by the Defense is that the entire holed-up-in-the-embassy-for-years situation is equivalent to house arrest.
The technicalities are many and complex, and Assange's legal team has appealed the extradition order on a wide range of technicalities and thus far failed in all of them. But it's beyond dispute that the prosecution claims to want a lot more than mere questions, and it's Assange who has refused to remain in a position which allows for the usual legal process to run its course.
The wider question is whether it is more accurate to claim that Assange has not yet been formally charged with the offences (or had the charges thrown out)
(i) because the Swedish prosecution is refusing requests
or (ii) because Assange did not respond to attempts by the prosecution to contact him whilst in Sweden (as verified by his own legal representatives), left Sweden on the day an arrest warrant was issued, and then following arrest and bail in the UK took the unusual option of relocating himself outside the reaches of the British police whilst fighting the extradition order in the courts.
I would suggest it's near impossible to believe the former factor is the primary reason no formal decision on charges has been made, even if one feels the rape allegations are extremely unlikely to be true and Assange has good reason to be afraid.
Is that because the charges are weak, or because under the Swedish system, prosecutors are required to confront him in person before filing charges? I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Swedish one, but my understanding is that it's the latter.
That's hardly surprising, given how Swedish courts have no problems with keeping people in prison pending judgement in cases like this. If they see that as justified, then self-imposed "house arrest" in an embassy is hardly going to strike them as particularly onerous.
What's more interesting is whether or not his lawyers manages to get anywhere with their demand for access to the remaining prosecution evidence. E.g. the SMS's the women sent, for example, which Assange's lawyers have previously been allowed to see but not get copies of.
There's very good coverage of the hearing over on Falkvinge's site, including a full translation of the arguments presented by the defense and prosecution, as it happened:
If not given any "special" treatment, the most he'd likely face would be a year or two at most in a low security prison.
This is one of the reasons I believe that whether or not he is guilty, he actually himself strongly believe there's something fishy going on.
If he believed nothing else was going on, then it would make very little sense for him to avoid the charges: Chances of being convicted in cases like these are tiny, and if convicted, the punishment in Sweden would be very light. He's likely to suffer more cooped up in that embassy than if convicted in Sweden.
Of course, if he genuinely believes something is fishy does not mean there has to be. And even if there is something fishy, it doesn't need to be US involvement - it could just as well be the prosecutor wanting to push her own agenda.
Actually, while you're right in spirit, I think you're technically wrong: you do not need to be a citizen of the US to be charged with treason. You just need to have betrayed an allegiance to the US. So for instance, resident aliens in the US can technically be charged with treason.
This is an interesting discussion but ultimately meaningless. You need not be charged with or convicted of anything for US authorities to decide to lock you up indefinitely and to deny habeas corpus, forever. There is absolutely no expectation of due process of law in the US.
There is quite a bit of expectation of due process in general; the exceptions are notable because, well, they are exceptions. I'll grant the case of Guantanamo prisoners as heinous violations of the rule of law, but I consider it a huge stretch to suggest that Assange would - if extradited to the US - face either treason charges (for reasons already discussed) or indefinite detention without due process. Whatever you may think of the US policies of indefinite detention, he doesn't fit the profile for those who would qualify.
He would, no doubt, be given a lengthy federal trial, likely found guilty and serve Federal prison time, while receiving moral and legal aid from many corners, particularly organizations concerned with civil rights, whistleblowing, and journalism. His conviction might even be eventually overturned.
Indefinite detention works (in that it has not been stopped) because those who are imprisoned without due process have few mainstream defenders - plenty of people object to the methods, but are ho-hum on the actual people involved. Assange's detention without due process would be a political nightmare for the administration at very least.
Indefinite detention "works" because it's structurally the same process as is used for prisoners of war, and we (in one of the great foreign policy blunders of the century) managed to declare war on a terrorist brand name instead of a state, meaning that we've created a military conflict that won't end --- where the conclusion of a conflict, usually (in the last 2 centuries) within single-digit years, is the normal way you resolve prisoner of war dilemmas.
Not that I'd want to suggest that a discussion that starts out with "that's interesting but it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as due process in the US" is going to be productive, but the nature of indefinite detention is, in a positive sense, not a normative one, interesting.
>Not that I'd want to suggest that a discussion that starts out with "that's interesting but it doesn't matter because there's no such thing as due process in the US" is going to be productive
I have found that most discussions you take part in are not terribly productive in the first place - though they never lack for postcount, so I'm not going to be too hard on myself here. That said, I didn't say there was no such thing as due process in the US, so your summary of my post misses the mark. I believe Assange should not have any expectation of due process, and that his treatment by US authorities, while perhaps not as brutal as that of prisoners in Guantanamo, would not be considered fair.
Nevertheless I found rogerhoward's response interesting, making - for me at least - the signal-to-noise ratio temporarily high enough that my previous post was worth it. But, now here we are. In the future, maybe if you don't find a line of discussion productive, you can try not posting.
You write as if your original comment wasn't right there for everyone else to read. Also, you write without addressing anything in the comment to which you're replying.
I addressed your stupid jab at me. As for the other stuff, yes I'm aware how US authorities justify their actions. Insightful stuff.
At any rate, rather than 'not posting' perhaps you could try tapering off a bit. Start with single sentences, then a 'heh' or an 'I agree', and then finally work your way up to just not posting in discussions you claim aren't productive.
I want to point out that even those detained as unlawful combatants are guaranteed due process. Due process is defined simply as notice and a hearing. The Constitution requires that you receive both before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. There is a line of cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court guaranteeing the right to contest the designation as an unlawful combatant. Just the fact that these cases made their way to our nation's highest court demonstrates that due process and rule of law are fundamental even to national security.
For more, see "The Guantanamo cases": Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Bush, Hamdan v. Bush, and Boumediene v. Bush.
This is all irrelevent to Assange, as rogerhoward points out.
It is easier to extradite Assange from the UK than from Sweden. But extraditing him to the US does not somehow make him culpable for treason; he has no formal connection to the US.
You know the death penalty is illegal in EU (etc.)? In fact, no EU/Council of Europe country can extradite someone for a crime where death penalty is an option.
If the USA were to declare he is wanted only for a crime that carries the death penalty, it would be great for Assange. He could walk around the EU without any risk of extradition.
This would be more convincing if Sweden had not been caught out illegally cooperating with CIA renditions - in one instance handing two Egyptian political asylum seekers over to CIA, knowing they'd be handed over to Mubarak for torture.
They insisted it had stopped. Only Wikileaks documents revealed the US ambassador was called in years later because Swedish military intelligence had just caught CIA, assisted by Swedish ground crew, carrying out further illegal rendition flights via Swedish airports.
I don't that's a likely scenario for Assange - he's too well known, and Europe and Sweden would "have to" cause a massive stink if he was illegally abducted that way - it'd be a diplomatic nightmare. But in general, if concerned about being handed over to the US, Sweden would be pretty low on the list of countries I'd want to go to.
I think the thing he actually fears is once in Sweden, having the US bring out some espionage charges, and then pressing the Swedish government to extradite him while he is in custody, after the Swedish charges play out.
This does make this case a bit strange. The woman in this case went to the police in order to ask them if it was possible to force a person to take a HIV test. While there she explain how she was half-asleep when Assange initiated un-safe sex, and when she heard about his other sexual partners a few days later she became concerned. When she contacted Assange about a HIV test, he brushed the concept off, which is why she were there at the police station asking them for help.
The result was by all reports (ie news papers), not what she wanted. They charged Assange for rape, which resulted in that she broke of any communication with the police and prosecutor, and refused to sign the written report from the police station.
Now, criminal case do not need that the woman agree with the charges, but it makes for a strange case. It also makes one ask for whose benefit this case is all for. All the men and women who is half-asleep when initiated by sex from a partner they previously that day/night had sex with?