We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

***SNIP

Swedish and British courts are responsible for how the women's allegations have been handled. As with every rape case, the women are not in charge of the case, the state is.

Whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual violence, we do not believe that is why he is being pursued. Once again women's fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes. The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will, usually to increase their powers, this time to facilitate Assange's extradition or even rendition to the US. That the US has not presented a demand for his extradition at this stage is no guarantee that they won't do so once he is in Sweden, and that he will not be tortured as Bradley Manning and many others, women and men, have. Women Against Rape cannot ignore this threat.

In over 30 years working with thousands of rape victims who are seeking asylum from rape and other forms of torture, we have met nothing but obstruction from British governments. Time after time, they have accused women of lying and deported them with no concern for their safety. We are currently working with three women who were raped again after having been deported – one of them is now destitute, struggling to survive with the child she conceived from the rape; the other managed to return to Britain and won the right to stay, and one of them won compensation.

Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?

[AntiFascist]

1. K&R....

I didn't even think rendition was a possibility until I learned about Sweden's history with the US.

[TalkingDog]

2. K&R

n/t

[99Forever]

3. Defenders of the murdering MIC...

.. should be around shortly to take up the cause for the scum that has infested our government.

[sabrina 1]

14. I doubt it, it would be difficult for them to attack these women.

Women like Naomi Wolf who has spent 25 years working with women on rape and abuse, has also stated, based on her own experience, that she does not believe this case is about rape.

Considering the ever changing stories of the women in this case, not to mention what may have been a creation of a piece of evidence, I doubt this case will ever go to court. The overwhelming amount of exculpatory evidence presents a real problem for the Prosecution and many believe this is why they refuse to speak to Assange because if they do, they will have to file their charges. And that appears to be the last thing they want to do.

[99Forever]

18. I've read many of your fact based posts on this Sabrina.

You have laid it out in almost indisputable logic how this clear attempt at smearing Assange is being perpetrated by TPTB. Keep up the good work.

[backscatter712]

32. The apologists for the MIC have never let facts get in the way of their smear campaign.

When rebutted, their tactic is to ignore the rebuttal, double-down, and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being evil misogynistic woman-haters who like rape.

[polly7]

4. K&R

[GliderGuider]

5. K and bloody R! nt

[redqueen]

6. "authorities care so little about violence against women...they manipulate rape allegations at will

usually to increase their powers..."

Exactly.

We know this. So we know the effort extended in pursuing him is NOTHING to do with those women.

[sabrina 1]

13. No, and it's a shame to see anyone on this forum spreading the false information I've seen

here. I've been tempted to write an OP with the actual facts with the timeline to demonstrate the shifting allegations and the sheer transparency of what a sham this is, but I realize that facts are not wanted. This is and always was a witchhunt and no matter how many facts are presented, they will be ignored.

The attorney for these women eg is someone who believes that women do not know whether or not they have been raped, that the government will make that decision. A true Patriarch who has profited greatly from using women.

I doubt this case was ever meant to go to court, because the exculpatory evidence is mountainous. I think that this is the goal, to keep it going to destroy Wikileaks and protect the secrets of the 1%.

What is truly despicable is that they are using rape and diminishing the real crime of rape, which may also be part of the goal.

[redqueen]

16. "diminishing the real crime of rape, which may also be part of the goal."

Exactly my suspiciously as well.

Somehow the women's allegations started out being called molestation, a separate crime under Swedish law... then they were somehow upgraded to rape.

[KoKo]

21. +1

[EOTE]

28. I would love to see such an OP, I highly encourage you to do one.

The allegations have screamed "bullshit" to me from the beginning and I know the way that both the U.S. and Sweden have handled this is like no other rape case in the world. Regardless, I think an OP with facts and a timeline could be extremely important in terms of convincing those who are capable of being convinced. I know that I, as well as many others here, would appreciate such an OP.

[Bonobo]

49. I also would like to see you do that OP.

I am disgusted by the patronizing posts from men calling women "rape apologists" when they don't know shit.

It's almost like they are just so used to pretending to be pure that they choose the position that they think puts them in the best light without bothering to think clearly and critically about it.

[struggle4progress]

7. Katrin Axelsson was outraged back in December 2010 when Assange was denied bail:

... Assange, who it seems has no criminal convictions, was refused bail in England despite sureties of more than £120,000. Yet bail following rape allegations is routine ...
Katrin Axelsson
Women Against Rape
Rape claims, WikiLeaks and internet freedom
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 8 December 2010 16.02 EST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-rape-allegations-freedom-of-speech



Bail was subsequently granted, of course, and Assange later skipped out, leaving his guarantors to forfeit their cash. So, looking back, it seems that the Swedish prosecutors, who asked the UK courts to deny bail, perhaps had a much better handle on Assange's character than Katrin Axelsson

[sabrina 1]

15. What it seems like is that the Swedish prosecutors do not want to file this case

and that is why they refuse to speak to Assange. Considering the problems they are having even now, answering questions about the multitude of inconsistencies in their 'allegations', I can understand why they would not want to have this case ever go to court.

Yesterday eg, a spokesperson for the prosecution was asked why Nye will not speak to Assange in a radio interview since there are no legal barriers to her doing so. The spokesperson stated that this was a 'personal decision' made by the prosecutor. Really? I thought the interview just had to take place in Sweden??

So, already they are changing their story. She was then asked why the prosecutor would make such a decision when Assange is and has been available to speak to for two years. In a precursor of what will happen if this case ever does get to court, all she could say was 'I don't know'.

And neither does anyone else.

[struggle4progress]

8. The Assange affair is not just about WikiLeaks, stupid (The Irish Times | Friday, August 24, 2012)

The Irish Times - Friday, August 24, 2012
SUSAN McKAY

... Assange has not sought political asylum because of WikiLeaks. He is on the run from allegations of rape. These alleged crimes are defined as both serious and non-political. Political asylum is a hard-won human right – Assange has abused it. In doing so he has endorsed a real witch hunt – against the women who allege he sexually coerced them ..

The fact the US has not sought to extradite Assange from the UK, which has the sort of right-wing government that would probably be all too ready to comply with such a request, is not addressed.

Nor is the fact that those accused of sexual offences routinely skip across borders to evade legal proceedings, and that the ability to extradite them is vital. Think Liam Dominic Adams. Think Fr Brendan Smyth. Nor that the assumptions behind the conspiracy theory are based on deeply misogynist notions of why women make rape allegations. Nor that the Swedish justice system is internationally respected in relation to its handling of crimes of sexual violence.

Assange has, however, in the past, been less reticent. “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism,” he has said. “I fell into the hornet’s nest of revolutionary feminism.” One of his lawyers told a British newspaper that “the honey trap has been sprung . . . dark forces are at work . . . this is part of a greater plan” ...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0824/1224322862282.html

[robinlynne]

10. PLEASE. You ignore Bradley Manning's treatment. You ignore the fact that there was no rape or alledg

alledged rape even.

[struggle4progress]

11. I am content to let the Swedish criminal process sort out Assange's guilt or innocence. Neither you

nor I is competent today to say whether or not a rape occurred. If the case is as weak as the Assangists claim, then we can expect the process to resolve quickly in Assange's favor, once he returns to Sweden. But it does become ever-more-difficult to believe that Assange really considers himself innocent, given the time and money he has wasted trying to avoid that return. His friends and supporters put up about $350K a year and a half back so he could be free on bail, and presumably a large fraction of that money would eventually have been given to support Wikileaks, if Assange hadn't jumped bail

If Brad Manning really has been maltreated, the facts will come out and there will be consequences. His court martial is, in any case, scheduled to start in the near future. But the circumstances of Manning's detention, and the penalties he faces, are irrelevant to the Assange matter. Manning is a young soldier, of very low rank, who allegedly took upon himself the release of something like 750K pages of confidential documents entrusted to him. The military of any country would look unfavorably on that, and it is easy to imagine other times and other places in which Manning's alleged behavior would have earned him a summary execution, whether or not he did any verifiable damage. The statute is drawn broadly for a reason. In Manning's case, the prosecutors did not ask for the death penalty by the deadline, so it is appropriately off the table. The rules that apply to Manning are nevertheless the rules of military justice: he had a certain duty, in which he seems to have grossly failed. The Manning case tells us nothing whatever about Assange's status before American law, or what Assange might expect if a Federal prosecutor decided there was some basis for charges against Assange

[robinlynne]

170. We all KNOW there was no rape. There was no ACCUSATION of rape. period.

There is no doubt. There is a swedish word which means something like sexual misconduct. It does NOT mean rape.

[struggle4progress]

171. The UK courts did visit exactly that question, and their findings are different than you state

I will say, yet again, that I have no opinion on the charges themselves, which I regard as best handled in Sweden by the Swedish authorities, but it is somewhat tiresome to encounter the same nonsense repeated, over and over, by persons who seem interested only to regurgitate certain talking points long ago discredited

[robinlynne]

172. Here is the entirety. all charges, the whole story. The word rape is nowhere. The women asked for a

an hiv test. period. THERE WAS NO RAPE. NOR ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHARGES. There is an investigation into his having sex with a broken condom. which in Sweden is considered a sexual offense.


Swedish investigation
[edit] Complaints and initial investigation

On 20 August 2010, two women came to Swedish police inquiring whether it was possible to require that Julian Assange be submitted to an HIV-test. The women involved were a 26-year-old in Enköping and a 31-year-old in Stockholm.[8][9]

In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné declared, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." However, Karin Rosander, from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at that time, but continued to investigate.[10]

After learning of the investigation, Assange said, "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."[11]

On 30 August, he was questioned by the Stockholm police.[5][12] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[11][13][14]

Claes Borgström, the attorney who represents the two women, persuaded the director of public prosecution against the decision to drop part of the investigation.[8][15]
[edit] Case reopened

On 1 September 2010, Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations.[16]

On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden.[17][18] On 18 October 2010, his request was denied.[18][17][19] He left Sweden on 27 September 2010.[20] The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest.[21]

On 18 November 2010, prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for the arrest of Assange in order for him to be interviewed by the prosecutor.[22] As he was now living in England, the court ordered him detained (häktad) in absentia.[23][24] On appeal, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the warrant on suspicion of våldtäkt (rape), olaga tvång (duress/unlawful coercion), and two cases of sexuellt ofredande,[25][26][27][28] which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation",[29] "sexual assault",[30] "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment".[31][32][19][26][27] The Supreme Court of Sweden decided not to consider a further appeal as no principle was at stake.[citation needed][33] On 6 December 2010, Scotland Yard notified Assange that a valid European arrest warrant had been received.[34]

Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence. [35] The prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. Observers note however that Assange has not yet been interviewed about several of the allegations[36], including the most serious, and that Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions[37] .
[edit] Extradition process
[edit] First instance proceedings
[edit] Detention and bail

Assange presented himself to the Metropolitan Police the next morning and was remanded to London's Wandsworth Prison. [38] On 16 December, he was granted bail[39] with bail conditions of residence at Ellingham Hall, Norfolk, and wearing of an electronic tag. Bail was set at £240,000 surety with a deposit of £200,000 ($312,700).[40]

On release on bail, Assange said "I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence in this matter,"[41] and told the BBC, "This has been a very successful smear campaign and a very wrong one."[42] He claimed that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US." Swedish prosecutors have denied the case has anything to do with WikiLeaks.[40]
[edit] Extradition hearing

The extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in London.[43][44] Assange's lawyers at the extradition hearing were Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens (solicitor), human rights specialists, and the prosecution was represented by a team led by Clare Montgomery QC.[45] Arguments were presented as to whether the Swedish prosecutor had the authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant, the extradition was requested for prosecution or interrogation, the alleged crimes qualified as extradition crimes, there was an abuse of process, his human rights would be respected, and he would receive a fair trial if extradited to Sweden.
[edit] Extradition decision

The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld.[33][46][47] Senior District Judge Howard Riddle found against

[robinlynne]

173. actually the word rape is in there. but quite clearly not from the women.

[struggle4progress]

175. "... The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story ..."

– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

[struggle4progress]

174. Now that was a real pants-on-fire misrepresentation:

... The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4 ... This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape ...

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

[robinlynne]

178. If she said no. If he then continued. How many times have I (or anyone) been with a lover, and

after great sex, one of us wants to have sex again and initiates it and wakes you up?

That is one of the greater things in life.

Rape, which I also know, by a stranger with a gun pointed at me, is absolutely terrorizing.

Once again, you do not go back for another encounter with a rapist. period.
She had sex with him again a few days later. There was no rape.

[struggle4progress]

181. The Swedish court will be better able to try the facts than DUers

[sabrina 1]

12. Yes, they ignore the War Crimes revealed in the leaks, they ignore the brutal rapes of the

women of Iraq, try to get these oh so outraged people to even acknowledge that our government has decided to 'move on' from those crimes, to act as though those women never existed. You will get silence.

The are USING rape, a despicable, vile thing to do, for political purposes. It makes me ill.

[pnwmom]

145. Manning's treatment is irrelevant. Manning is a US citizen and a service member

with special obligations to protect the info as part of his job.

There are no laws that would allow the US to prosecute Assange, who wasn't a citizen and only published the leaks (didn't break any confidentiality agreements).

You cannot claim as "fact" that there was no rape. Two women are still alleging that they were raped, and they want the investigation Assange's avoiding to be carried out.

[MNBrewer]

163. Manning's status as a US citizen and service member vis a vis his treatment is NOT irrelevant

Regardless of his "special obligations", the fact that the US government has mistreated him is clear, and clearly unwarranted as anything beyond pre-conviction punishment.

[pnwmom]

164. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that regardless of what is happening to Manning,

his situation is entirely different from Assange, who most likely cannot be prosecuted under US law.

[MNBrewer]

165. Which is why the US so desperately wants to see him at least in the hands of the Swedes

My guess is that some pretext WILL be found to prosecute him under US law. He exposed US warcrimes and must be made to pay for it.

[pnwmom]

166. It will be better for Obama politically if this whole thing blows over, and prosecuting

Assange will not help with that.

[a geek named Bob]

51. Hey, struggles?

Isn't calling somebody stupid...

A personal attack?

I thought you didn't like when people did that...

[struggle4progress]

53. Perhaps you're confusing me with the headline editor at the Irish Times?

I'm sure they'd be glad to learn if you dislike their headers

[a geek named Bob]

55. geee...

you call somebody stupid, and then you blame somebody else...

Not very sporting of you.

[struggle4progress]

61. It's easy enough for you to check by clicking the link

[a geek named Bob]

63. strange...

I read that link that WeAareWomenAgainstRape posted...

It doesn't seem to agree with you...

Seriously though... While it's fun listening to you whinge on...

1.) you seem to have some magical thinking, in your attempts at discourse
2.) you seem to feel you can call people stupid, but get bent out of shape, when someone (like me) points out the flaws in your arguments (others have pointed out what hints at your personal flaws, so I won't mention them here).
3.) You have FAR more trust in the innate fairness of the covert snatch-and-grab community of the USA than I do.

I'm already starting to make you that wood carving...

[hack89]

74. "Stupid" is in the Irish Times headline that struggle4progress linked to.

I understand you are looking for a fight can't you at least be smart about it?

[a geek named Bob]

83. hey hack89

I guees I'm just stupid...

and tired of folks posting RW talking points.

I still like my idea of trial at the Hague...

[hack89]

84. You guessed right for once. nt

[a geek named Bob]

85. And thank you for that

so...

We are in agreement that posters pushing the RW talking points are annoying...

Good to know.

[hack89]

88. Stupidity and ignorance are more annoying

the level of discourse can really suck.

[a geek named Bob]

92. so...

having someone endlessly push RW talking points is okay with you?

I believe I've given a reasonable solution to the Assange problem: try the case in the World Court.

[hack89]

93. Since the world court doesn't have jursidiction over Swedish sex crimes

your solution is somewhat problematic.

[a geek named Bob]

94. Actually...

Ecaudor is already talking about having hte case go to the world court.

Ball's in your court.

[a geek named Bob]

96. for a link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1199283

[hack89]

97. "Diplomatic ayslum" - which Ecuador is claiming - is not established in international law.

Note: diplomatic asylum is NOT the same as political ayslum

A right of diplomatic asylum is not established in international law. The International Court of Justice has emphasised that in the absence of treaty or customary rules to the contrary, a decision by a mission to grant asylum involves a derogation from the sovereignty of the receiving state. The Organization of American States agreed a convention in 1954.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_law#Diplomatic_asylum

Diplomatic asylum appears to be a South American idea - the OAS is the only international organization of states that has ratified a treaty recognizing it. Britain and the rest of Europe specifically reject the concept.

Since the ICJ rejected similar arguments before, legal precedence says Ecuador has no case.

[a geek named Bob]

98. still...

If Assange goes to Sweden, there's a very real chance the case gets dropped, and he dies, or rots in a US black-bag prison.

You okay with that?

Try the case. Just do it in a place the USA won't badger into mealy-mouthed submission.

[a geek named Bob]

99. Also...

Ecaudor is pushing for the case to go to the Hague.

What's your beef with the case going to trial in a neutral country?

[hack89]

100. To extradict Assange to America would be very hard.

due to both British and Swedish law. Which is why Assange did not argue that issue when fighting extradition to Sweden - he knew extradition to America was so difficult as to be improbable.

The bigger issue is that Assange has not broken any US laws. The last thing the president wants is a huge spectacle of a trial that creates a political martyr if he is convicted or a huge embarrassment if he is acquitted. Extraditing Assange is the last thing America wants - there is no way they can win.

[a geek named Bob]

101. man!

I wish I had your faith in American Law and Justice!

Assange was a part (perhaps a core part) of a group that faces espionage charges. If he goes to Sweden, what's to stop Sweden from quietly handing him over? For that matter, the USA has that little thing called the NDAA.

I'll stick with the world court trial.

[hack89]

102. So what stopped Britain from quietly turning Assange over to the US?

they had him in jail. He has been under house arrest for two years.

Explain that to me if America is so dead set on getting Assange that they would ignore any law, any court, any public outcry.

[a geek named Bob]

104. hmmm

off the top of my head, I can't say...

other than perhaps Britain was figuring on a show trial, released him on bond, and then Assange stole a march via walking over to the Ecaudoran Embassy.

You keep pushing for the "fair and balanced" questioning in Sweden, and I'll go for that trial in the World Court.

[hack89]

106. The World Court won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Assange has two options - go to Sweden or stay in the embassy. Eventually he will end up in Sweden.

[a geek named Bob]

107. I don't know about that...

While your rhetoric is interesting, your facts are not in evidence.

Ecuador seems to be pushing for that world trial. Also, the OAS seems to want to have a trial.

If things don't work out, then I'm expecting him to Assange to die in a US prison for whistle-blowing. As to your assertion that he'll wind up in Sweden... He could just go to Ecaudor. Land an Ecaudoran chopper on the roof, and make a fast run with him in the chopper, to a waiting ship with diplomatic tags.

Truth serum is about the only way we've got to get the facts of this case, and that stuff is notoriously undependable.

[hack89]

112. The OAS is not pushing for that trial.

They have given Ecuador partial support and nothing more.

Foreign ministers from the American continent have passed a motion backing the "inviolability of diplomatic missions" amid the row between the UK and Ecuador over Julian Assange.

Ecuador called for the Organisation of American States vote saying the UK had threatened to storm the embassy.

But the resolution was reworded after the UK insisted it had made no threat.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas said the resolution expressed solidarity with Ecuador but, despite a strong plea from Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, there was no reference to any threat against his country's embassy in London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19377110

Ecuador is going to be more and more isolated on this issue as time goes on and the emotions settle down. They have painted themselves into a corner.

[a geek named Bob]

113. I guess we'll see...

also...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021148411

[hack89]

114. So?

Ecuador is on the wrong side of international law - they don't have a leg to stand on.

And as I said in that thread, Assange spending years in that embassy is just as good as him in a Swedish prison - maybe better. He is out of the picture and unable to work on Wikileaks while the president doesn't have to deal with the political and public blowback of putting him on trial.

Mark my words - I don't know whether it will be Assange or Correa that caves first but one of them will. Assange's ego is too big for an air mattress in a tiny room so my money is on him.

[AntiFascist]

153. Please see the latest news here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014207247

Assange's lawyer wants to take this to international court.

[hack89]

161. "Diplomatic ayslum" is not established in international law.

Note: diplomatic asylum is NOT the same as political ayslum

A right of diplomatic asylum is not established in international law. The International Court of Justice has emphasised that in the absence of treaty or customary rules to the contrary, a decision by a mission to grant asylum involves a derogation from the sovereignty of the receiving state. The Organization of American States agreed a convention in 1954.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_law#Diplomatic_asylum

Diplomatic asylum appears to be a South American idea - the OAS is the only international organization of states that has ratified a treaty recognizing it. Britain and the rest of Europe specifically reject the concept.

i don't blame his lawyers for trying - that is their job. But since the ICJ rejected similar arguments before, legal precedence says Ecuador and Assange have no case.

[AntiFascist]

150. More isolated?

It seems that Ecuador has gained significant support and even caught the UK by surprise. According to the BBC, it could "take years for the UK to repair the damage to its reputation in South America"

[hack89]

159. More practical matters like trade and tourism will come to the fore

as time goes on. If a tepid communique from it's immediate neighbors is the best Ecuador can do then it is clear this will not be a huge international fuss. It is hard to argue that most of the world gives a rat's ass about Assange beyond tweaking the US.

[AntiFascist]

162. Tepid?

"Clearly a blow to the UK"

&feature=player_detailpage

[hack89]

167. They refused to give Ecuador the wording they wanted

after receiving reassurances from the UK that they would not storm the embassy.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas said the resolution expressed solidarity with Ecuador but, despite a strong plea from Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, there was no reference to any threat against his country's embassy in London.

All they said was "please work it out through diplomatic means".

Notice that there no support voiced for Assange.

Btw - do you think a single opinion voiced on a Russian news by someone who works for the Venezuelan government has that much significance? Since when have government talking heads been the font for unbiased truth?

[AntiFascist]

179. Well apparently something worked...

the UK has retracted it's threat to enter the embassy and now seems very eager to discuss things diplomatically with Ecuador.

The OAS represents the entire Western Hemisphere. It's no surprise that the US and Canada wanted to tone down the resolution and a few LA nations fell in line with them.

[hack89]

180. The UK told the OAS that they never made such a threat

the OAS accepted that. The UK never "retracted" anything.

What about the rest of the world? Where is massive outcry in support of Ecuador and Assange? Don't you find the silence puzzling?

[AntiFascist]

182. Have you not seen the news??

"Various outlets are reporting that on Saturday the British Foreign Office informed Quito that the diplomatic standoff was over and there was no longer a threat to enter the embassy."

I don't believe the UK is denying this, and in fact has stated that they want to resume dipomatic discussions.

There are people are all over the place supporting Assange. Unfortunately, when its only groups of people and not governments themselves, it doesn't always make the headlines.

[robinlynne]

9. sign me up.

[aquart]

17. Well put.

[CabCurious]

19. This is unprincipled and anarchistic. Absolutely depressing to see so many defending Assange...

Forget wikileaks for ONE MOMENT.

Two women have accused a man of intentionally having sex without a working condom AGAINST THEIR WILL:

1. That he 'unlawfully coerced' a woman, known as Miss A, by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner
2. That he 'sexually molested' Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her 'express wish' one should be used
3. That he 'deliberately molested' Miss A 'in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity'
4. That he had sex with a second woman, Miss W, without a condom while she was asleep - this alleged crime falls into the category of rape under Swedish law

How are you so sure they are lying?
Why does this man get to be above the law in your views?

He fled the country during the investigation. He landed in the UK and made a press statement about how the investigation was over, when it was NOT. He has since justified his action as defending himself from some CIA conspiracy to put him in Gitmo. He has insisted this is all about wikileaks, not his own behavior or even the accusations against him.

He has PRETENDED to cooperate with the investigation.

Furthermore, he has withheld all kinds of LEAKS. Where are those banking docs? He has made numerous threats to release various documents if authorities come after him.

Wake up... this is not an honorable man.

He's a HACKER... who left his family... hopping from bed to bed of fawning women... while basically taking all the credit for whistle blowers who actually risk their lives and go to prison.

[xchrom]

20. Your stuff w/ Assange is way too Freudian for me. Nt

[KoKo]

22. "unprincipled and anarchistic"

You must be confusing this with CNN's reporting that "anarchists" may be planning to plant "IED's" to bomb the Republican and Democratic conventions.

lol's ......or you are trying to say that anyone who presents a different view about what's really behind the charges against Manning is an "unprincipled anarchist."

That's quite an accusation.

[sabrina 1]

23. I think what s/he is saying is

'Two women accused him, what more do we need?' And if you don't agree with that cogent conclusion you are an anarchist and definitely unprincipled.

[KoKo]

42. Yes.......I did understand that and that's why I replied to it ...the way I did. n/t

[a geek named Bob]

60. Sounds about right...

Friend CabCurious seems to work by different rules then other folks do...

[AntiFascist]

37. You seem to ignore the fact that Wikileaks...

has obtained this email from Stratfor, a private intelligence group. Even the FBI has taken these emails seriously enough to prosecute the hackers who stole them:

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1050427_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html

BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing
charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than
prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend
speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation.
I also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember
correctly rape was never the charge.

...

Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would
it not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage?

[JDPriestly]

41. Let's say that you are the lawyer prosecuting Assange.

The article quoted below explains the standard of proof now applied in Scandinavian law "beyond a reasonable doubt" and discusses the methodology with which it may be applied:

As regards criminal cases these norms and methods have received their
present shape through a number of decisions between 1980 and 1990, in which
the Supreme Court ruled that for a conviction the defendant’s guilt had to be
proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. This phrase, adopted from a two-hundred-year-old American legal tradition, defines the margin of error which has to be observed by the courts. Evaluation of evidence in criminal cases can thus be regarded as determination of whether or not the already strong evidence of the defendant’s guilt - expressed by the decision to prosecute - is so strong that the prosecutor’s statement of the criminal act charged constitutes the only reasonable explanation of the facts of the case; or to express it in more positive terms, that the evidence is so strong that the defendant’s guilt may be regarded as certain. This requirement is coupled up with conviction in such a way that the judge may be doubtful of the defendant’s guilt and yet deliver the verdict of guilty: personal, subjective and emotional scepticism shall not be sufficient to upset the prosecutor’s thesis. If, on the other hand, the doubt is ‘reasonable’, the defendant must be declared innocent. A reasonable doubt means in this context a doubt which has the following characteristics:

a) it is rational, i.e. it can be logically justified,
b) it is concrete, i.e. it is founded on the facts of the case, and,
c) it is relative, i.e. the determination of reasonableness has been
made within the scope of the nature of the case.

The last criterion stipulating that reasonableness of doubt shall be determined on the basis of the investigation ‘required by the nature of the case’ (which can be called the investigation requirement) means that the prerequisite for the
performance of satisfactory evidence evaluation is the possession by the court of investigation records which are necessary in order to eliminate a non-guilty
verdict. This investigation requirement varies from case to case, depending on
the seriousness of the crime, the attitude of the defendant, the type of the crime in question and the factual circumstances of the case. These varied investigation requirements mean, in their turn, that the certainty of the conclusion, i.e. its robustness, also varies, and depends on the thoroughness of the investigation1 In a minor case the conclusion can be drawn on the basis of much less evidence than in the case of a serious crime with the defendant pleading not guilty.2 In each case, however, it is required that no concrete doubts are present with regard to the correctness of the prosecutor’s statement of the criminal act charged.3 The required standard of proof is therefore the same in all criminal cases – what distinguishes them is not the quality criterion but the requirement of evidence necessary for the court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

. . . .

Normally, the Supreme Court is not supposed to take up cases which have to do with evidence evaluation, and yet, during the last 20 years the Court has dealt with approximately 30 cases concerning evaluation of evidence in criminal cases, two-thirds of which had to do with sex crimes.

(The case against Assange would be such a he said, she said case requiring evidence evaluation.)

. . . .

When the standard of proof has been formulated as ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’, the prosecutor’s statement of the criminal act charged is tried against alternative hypotheses. If any of these ‘working hypotheses’ which have been formulated on the basis of facts relevant to the case cannot be disproved, the prosecutor’s statement cannot be accepted and the defendant shall go free.


. . . .

http://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/40-7.pdf

Now, as the prosecutor of the claims against Assange, how are you going to prove that Assange is wrong or lying? What will be your evidence?

How will you disprove every alternative theory or explanation that Assange's defense attorney suggests?

It is very easy to point a finger, but that is now how the law works. And we are all grateful for that fact because if it worked that way any one of us could be hauled into court and placed in jail for things we never did.

[joeybee12]

24. KNR...

[WonderGrunion]

25. Fortunately, the US hasn't asked for him to be extradited.

Nor is there any evidence that the US has filed any charges against him.

[NNN0LHI]

26. Might be the "sweet, sweet, prince.", syndrome?

Might be something more serious?

Don

[JDPriestly]

39. If he were a female journalist or publisher, we would all support his claim

for asylum just as strongly. It's a matter of fairness.

Judy Miller at the Times published military secrets and outed a CIA agent in the press. She was not charged although outing a CIA agent carries big penalties in our law.

Technically perhaps someone else outed Valerie Plame first, but that does not change things.

Obviously, most of the stuff Assange published was not classified nearly as highly as the name of a CIA agent or the military information about possible weapons in Iraq that Judith Miller and the New York Times published.

In part the Assange case is about whether those of us who post on the internet enjoy the same freedom of press and speech as those who print newspapers. The government would like to set a precedent narrowing our rights. They are trying to make Assange as unpopular as they possibly can in order to make it easier to convict him without angering or alerting people who strongly want to be able to share their ideas and information on the internet.

That is why I back Assange.

[KoKo]

44. Interesting....I hope folks will read what you say! +1

[99th_Monkey]

27. I can only hope this puts a big cork in the mouth of Assange haters on DU.

But I'm not holding my breath either.

[djean111]

29. Too late.

Getting kind of weirdly demented about it, really.

[treestar]

34. That's rather nasty

People don't agree with you, so they shouldn't say anything?

[99th_Monkey]

40. Not at all

I simply hold onto the quaint notion that facts matter, and
that the opinion of the feminist movement matters in the
matter of Julian Assange & Wikileaks;

and

I was conjecturing that --- silly me --- just maybe these very
things might matter as well to those on DU who for whatever
reason(s), are adamantly one-sided, rude & nasty in their
open hatred of, and attacks on, Julian Assange; such that
this might give them pause.

But like I also said, I'm not holding my breath either.

That is all.

[treestar]

46. I've so far never seen anyone who questions Julian suggest he or his supporters

get a "cork in their mouth" - an unpleasant way of saying STFU.

I've said nothing any worse about him than that I think if he were sincerely a good person, he would just go to Sweden and deal with it. The worst I've said about him is that he is narcissistic or possibly mentally ill (which would be sympathetic).

The law should apply to him and if he has engaged in civil disobedience, then he should even be willing to be tried in the US. That's what brave disobeyers of the law do. They don't hide out and claim that it's unfair the law proceed against them (the equivalent of saying he's above the law).

I can't see defending him after he jumped bail - what a bad thing to do to his supporters who raised the money.

[Puglover]

125. Yes, you're much much nicer.

You call them "rabid".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240136716#post76

[treestar]

134. so, that's not telling them to STFU

They are able to be as rabid as they choose. I didn't hope they got a cork in the mouth. Yes, I am much nicer.

[Puglover]

147. YOU said STFU

The other poster said "cork in the mouth" I know same meaning however one is nastier and more hostile. At least quote the post you are talking about honestly.

And your standards are confusing to say the least.

[treestar]

149. I did not tell any of Julian's supporters to STFU

I do not do that ever.

They can post the most rabid, wild diatribes they wish and I will never tell them to stop posting.

They can post for instance over and over the lie that the women don't want prosecution and i will just refute it over and over.

[99th_Monkey]

168. Please know

that I hear you; and understand you were offended by
my using "put a cork in it", which is roughly similar to
STFU.

I regret using the phrase now, as it seems to have
obscured and distracted the main point of my first post,
which is that major figures in feminist movement can
see right through the BS "rape charges" against Assange,
and are calling Sweden out for it.

I stand with them and with Assange. There, I said it
without saying STFU. Is that all better now?

[JoeyT]

30. I'd be positively

fucking thrilled if every rape allegation was taken this seriously by any government anywhere.

Of course it will be easy to prove they're not just going after him over Wikileaks: A list of the number of people accused of rape that the governments involved have fought this hard to get hold of that didn't embarrass a government. I'm sure it's quite the long list. Surely no one would be so crass as to feign concern for rape victims in an attempt to silence criticism of governments.

[xchrom]

31. ...

[riderinthestorm]

33. +1000000. Or if Sweden had ANY kind of stellar history of prosecuting rape cases

that they could point to as some kind of track record of persistence and consistency in getting justice for ALL rape victims....

[sabrina 1]

43. Me too. I was hoping that there would be some justice for the women who were raped in our

detention centers, but we are told to forget about it, we are moving on.

The details of those crimes were so horrific that even Lindsey Graham, after viewing the videos which if anyone now remembers, were fought over in the courts for years, admitted that what he had seen was sickening. Even Rumsfeld admitted that 'we are talking about rape and murder here' and if they were released would cause so much outrage it would be damaging to the US war efforts. Well, the way to have mitigated that damage would have been to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators. Those women, the ones who survived, are somewhere in this world, with no advocates, no justice. I know that many good attorneys tried, but we don't care about war crimes, including brutal rapes as a weapon of war. So I'm finding it hard to believe the outrage over this one case, when millions of proven, not alleged, crimes of horrific proportion against women are not even mentioned, or worse, dismissed.

[woo me with science]

57. Marvelous post

and marvelous smackdown of the despicable feigned outrage being shoveled in these threads for this transparent political agenda.

Surely, indeed.

[DeSwiss]

35. K&R!

''Once again women's fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes.''

- Exactly.

[fascisthunter]

36. K&R

[JDPriestly]

38. Well said. My view also. Thanks.

[Honeycombe8]

45. Ya. Sweden is known for persecuting people. Oooooh.

I'm a-scared of Sweden. They're such bullies over there. They especially like to go after blue eyed, blonde, tall men.

[99Forever]

59. My, what a ...

...condescending attempt at snark that was.

Can't you do any better than that?

[Honeycombe8]

108. I made the pt at how ludicrous the OP argument is. "Sweden's after you!" Oooooooh.

Now that's something you don't hear very often. That Sweden's after you. Sweden. Of all places. Going after one of their own...tall, blonde, blue eyed, rich. Because they're so mean and violent there in Sweden.

So silly.

What it boils down to is the unspoken statement: women lie about molestation...esp when we like the alleged perp.

[99Forever]

111. Poppycock.

Look up "extraordinary rendition" and torture and Sweden's PRIMARY role in it.

Torture isn't something I laugh it. I guess you think it's ok.

[treestar]

47. Then take advantage of the fact this charge is being pursued

It could become a precedent.

There's no logic to this position other than blind love of Julian along with possible rage at all governments.

[xchrom]

48. ...

[treestar]

50. What is funny about the precedent argument?

I'm female and I've never seen any feminist who would normally be against a government pursuing charges "vigorously." You just prove how far gone you are.

[xchrom]

52. you totally didn't read this.

and your 'rage against' government... well...whatever...it's laughably ridiculous.

by the way -- are you mad at all at the british government that denies asylum to rape victims? -- i mean at all?

this high falootin defense of governments that routinely deny justice is laughable on it's face.

[CabCurious]

58. definitely a lot of hypocrisy from these governments, however 2 basic facts remain

Most of those defending Assange seem to be systematically ignoring these 2 facts:

Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne quickly countermanded the duty prosecutor. There was no basis in the police report to believe a rape had taken place, she said, so she halted that investigation. As for the query into sexual harassment, she reduced its severity and ordered an investigation into simple harassment.

Sweden tried to DROP the case (as the media storm grew).

After that, the two women retained as their attorney Claes Borgstrom, a former government official and a fixture in the Social Democratic Party. On Sept. 1, Borgstrom persuaded Ny, who is director of public prosecution - and Finne's boss - not only to reinstate the rape investigation but also to expand the harassment investigation to include the allegations of sexual harassment.

It's the TWO WOMEN, with their Social Democratic Party lawyer, who demanded that the case be pursued, in spite of Assange's political support and celebrity status.

People may genuinely believe that the global hype over this is increasingly due to the wikileaks connection, but it seems a REAL STRETCH of morality and principles to insist that this does NOT primarily involve 2 sincere women who want their case heard. Even if we are concerned about extradition to the USA or whatever, it doesn't change these facts. This is about a man fleeing from a rape investigation... and there is NO evidence it's all a political ploy.

And yes... sadly... I'm sure I'll be attacked again for saying this.

[xchrom]

62. this claes borgstrom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claes_Borgström


Borgström has often attracted attention with his controversial behaviour. He claims that all men carry a collective guilt for violence against women and has in this context supported Gudrun Schyman's "Tax on Men".[6]

[treestar]

67. So you're just generally attacking a person?

What says he did not do his job here?

[CabCurious]

86. and so? be suspicious... but don't insist these 2 women and their left-wing lawyers are liars

And imo... the assange defenders ARE insisting to either ignore these 2 women or to INSIST they are lying.

Then they attack ANYBODY who dares say... "what a minute."

Do you realize how nasty people have been on THIS forum towards anybody trying to defend these 2 women?

[xchrom]

89. i've told you before -- i think you've sexualized this.

of all the posters defending the extradition -- your defense leave me creepy.

and i mean it.

[CabCurious]

95. instead of attacking me... address the issues (this is ABOUT sex)

[sabrina 1]

148. It is not about sex. Rape is not about sex it is about violence. I would think that anyone posting

on a Democratic board would at least know this very basic fact by now. Disgusting, 'rape is about sex'. I thought that at least we managed to overcome that false claim long ago, on the Left anyhow.

[sabrina 1]

118. That guy is scary. And he is the one who forced the prosecutors into restarting this case.

He's made a career out of using women for his own personal gain. And he has some of the wackiest ideas about sex 'crimes' of anyone I've ever encountered. He's a perfect example, along with his political cohorts, of when the 'left' becomes so extreme they go all the way around the bend and meet up with the extremists on the right. A real nut case, or just a sharp, self-serving immoral individual with no particular ideology, using women for his own personal gain?

[CabCurious]

120. You're trashing a left-wing lawyer & his 2 progressive female clients (OMFG LISTEN TO YOURSELF) nt

[sabrina 1]

124. Lol!

Your outrage is, well, interesting. 'Left-wing'. Let's hope we on the Left do not ever embrace such a disgusting individual.

[CabCurious]

129. So the women are liars and their lawyer is a disgusting scumbucket. Got it.

[sabrina 1]

136. Their lawyer is a disgusting scum-bucket and always was. His participation in this case is not

helping, if I were the women I would find a more respected attorney who does not have the baggage this guy has.

[treestar]

140. Talk about right wing talking points!

It's a RW talking point to say someone should answer to the law, but not to trash victims of sexual coercion or defenders of women's issues!

[CabCurious]

121. he "forced" them to restart the case! what an ASSHOLE!!!

[sabrina 1]

130. So you are trashing the well-respected Female Prosecutor who dismissed this case after viewing

all of the early evidence, and supporting a Patriarchal fool who believes women do not know whether they have been raped or not and that the State will make that decision for them?

A hint for you. Way before this 'case' this creep was despised by actual women's rights groups who were not attached to the Christian Fundie 'left'.

See women do not agree with Patriarchal men like this who think they are too stupid to know if they have been raped or not and that only the Government can make that decision for them.

[CabCurious]

132. Nope, and it may turn out that she was correct nt

[treestar]

142. The state always makes the decision ultimately.

That's what the law is for. It's not based on women saying they are raped or not. A woman may truly think she was raped but the law may acquit the accused. Likewise a woman who does not think she is may not realize that she was, under the law where she is.

And these two women, it has been repeatedly said, DO want the charges to go forward.

[sabrina 1]

146. Is see, women don't know when they have been raped so the State

will decide for them? Since when does the state prosecute someone for rape when a woman says 'I was not raped'?? I can't believe I'm reading this garbage here, after all the decades of struggle for women's equality, we are now seeing a return to a belief that women are too stupid to make decisions for the themselves, so men like that fool, patriarchal attorney will tell them what to think? I knew about the Swedish version of these extreme, fundie views but here?

If people are willing to go this far to make excuses for an ideology such as the one proposed by that fool, fundie attorney(yes they exist on the left 'Christian Fundies' and Sweden has a scary number of them actually influencing law over there) then DU is not what I thought it was. This is the kind of thing you only see on extremist, fundie sites, support for this ideology, now it's being promoted here? How far will Wikileaks' opponents go? Wow.

[treestar]

151. The state does and can

When someone presses a rape charge, they can't just drop it at will. It was a problem is domestic violence cases when people realized they could not just get the victim to "drop the charges" and have it all go away.

A woman who says "I was raped" and then retracts to say "I was not raped" is abusing the system. And as with most domestic violence, though he swears it won't happen again, it usually does happen again.

[sabrina 1]

157. No woman pressed a rape charge in this case. A fundi, extremist lawyer was the one who,

against the women's own statements, 'there was no rape' filed it for them. This is unheard of in civilized societies where women are respected as intelligent human beings. The early testimony of those women is on the record. The attorney has admitted it contradicts HIS list of 'allegations' but he refuses to respond to questions as to how he intends to refute the women's own words if this case ever gets to court. That's going to be one hell of a problem for him.

[treestar]

66. You haven't prove the UK never gives asylum to rape victims

The UK does grant asylum to people. But if there is a case where you think they should have and they didn't, then argue they should have. Instead of arguing that since they didn't, now they should go easy on another accused.

You're in essence saying if rape isn't prosecuted enough, then that means the next accused should have it way. Anti-feminist no matter how you slice it.

[xchrom]

75. wh said never? totally. read. the. article. nt

[treestar]

77. So you have no argument?

As usual.

Giving people long reading assignments is another tactic. Pick out the part you claim proves the UK never gives asylum to rape victims and defend the thesis that this should mean that all future rapists should never be prosecuted (if you like them).

[xchrom]

78. oy vey - that is some 1st rate projection there

[treestar]

81. No it was simply asking you to defend your argument

Without using diversionary tactics.

You've appeared to have said that if a country is not perfect in its prosecution of crimes that other and future crimes should be left un-prosecuted too. Defend that outlandish proposal.

[sabrina 1]

152. Assange should have called himself Pinochet and the British Government would have refused

to extradite him, given him safe passage to Australia and that would have been the end of it the 'case' against him.

.

[treestar]

154. Pinochet has nothing to do with it

Pinochet is not accused of violations of the Swedish code.

This argument is unsound. The equivalent would be Bush got away with war crimes, therefore, war crimes should never be prosecuted nor should any crime be prosecuted. Lots of people get away with crimes, and certainly Pinochet has. So did Stalin and he died in his bed. That doesn't mean we dismantle the criminal justice system world wide.

[sabrina 1]

156. I was talking about the British Government's policies on extradition.

Seem a little 'selective' shall we say. We know how Wikileaks embarrassed them by revealing the War Crimes they were involved in so that might have something to do with their extreme behavior towards Assange, eg, threatening to storm the embassy of a sovereign state, while refusing to hand over a man who commit Genocide against his own people.

[backscatter712]

56. Still dropping strawman arguments?

Must be hard to come up with logical arguments posting at the volume you do...

[treestar]

64. Why would it not be a good thing to use a vigorous prosecution of a sex charge

as a good precedent?

It seems anti-woman to take the position that since they have not been prosecuted vigorously before, they should not be now, because you want someone to be above the law. That's like going back into the old days.

If Julian had done this in the 50s or 60s nobody would have gone after him over it at all and you'd be condemning that.

[xchrom]

68. this kind of above the law behavior?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

The United Nations’ ruling that Sweden violated the global torture ban in its involvement in the CIA transfer of an asylum seeker to Egypt is an important step toward establishing accountability for European governments complicit in illegal US renditions, Human Rights Watch said today.

In a decision made public today, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that diplomatic assurances against torture did not provide an effective safeguard against ill-treatment in the case of an asylum seeker transferred from Sweden to Egypt by CIA operatives in December 2001. The committee decided that Sweden’s involvement in the US transfer of Mohammed al-Zari to Egypt breached the absolute ban on torture, despite assurances of humane treatment provided by Egyptian authorities prior to the rendition.

Human Rights Watch today released a detailed briefing paper answering questions about such “diplomatic assurances.”

“This UN ruling shows that we are slowly but surely getting to the truth about European complicity in illegal US renditions,” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “European parliaments and prosecutors must continue their inquiries into these matters.”

[treestar]

71. Isn't that the fallacy of tu quoque?

So some things are wrong, so all things wrong should be let go?

How far are you willing to go for this guy?

Sweden like any country will have mistakes. It will also do things right. Even the US does the right thing sometimes.

[a geek named Bob]

69. How about this

1.) We move the trial over to the Hague?
2.) We televise the whole thing?

sets precedence, shows no one is above the law, and it makes it harder for the USA to just outright grab assange.

[treestar]

72. How does the Hague have jurisdiction over this?

How about using the rule of law? Julian just answers to the charges. If he's so innocent, why not?

The US grabbing him has been proven ridiculous. We can grab him from the UK and had tons of time to do it before he jumped bail.

Julian does not get to set the terms. No accused ever has.

[xchrom]

76. if you're not guilty of anything you have nothing to worry about.

could you pick a more perfect right wing talking point?

[treestar]

79. Except that's not what I said

I said that if he's not guilty, he should have no problem cooperating with the legal system.

If I am charged with something I did not do, I am going to court to fight it. Not saying it's persecution that I even have to answer to the charge or arguing that it's OK for the prosecution to use evidence they obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment.

[a geek named Bob]

105. ...sigh...

Unless you know it's a kangaroo court, or a cheap excuse to disappear you. That's why I'm pushing for a change of venue.

You didn't perfectly parrot the RW talking points, merely paraphrased them.

[treestar]

109. It's not a kangaroo court

He's not being returned to Saudi Arabia, but to Sweden. Even the US does not have Kangaroo courts.

If I'm accused, I'll defend. I won't run away claiming I'm above the law and should not even be questioned.

[a geek named Bob]

110. ...sigh 2...

And you have proof that Sweden will follow their laws how?

Again, you're pretty much paraphrasing the RW talking points.

Assange even offered to answer Swedish questions, via skype.

Is there a special reason he needs to ONLY answer the questions ONLY in Sweden?

Look, if he offered to answer questions, and Ecaudor WANTS a trial to go forward in a neutral country, what's your beef? Justice will be served in the courts of the Hague, just as well (if not better) than in Sweden. There's a reason for changes of Venue. Go look it up.

Could it be that you want Assange hustled off into a rendition-prison?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

119. one rather common sense reason would be that

once the interview is done there is a very large chance he will be arrested as is common after the second interview where the evidence is shown to the suspected criminal and he can make a defense before they decide if it goes to trial or not.

If he is the the embassy and the decision to arrest is made, no jurisdiction
if over Skype, still no jurisdiction nor actual presence there

main reason for wanting him to return is because if the decision to arrest is done then they need to have jurisdiction to do so so Swedish law can be followed properly.

And why should it go to Hague before a Swedish court

[a geek named Bob]

126. ignoring the possibility

that the minute he goes to Sweden, he's handed over to the USA.

It should go to a neutral country, that might have less political pressure susceptibility to turn him over immediately to the USA.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

135. he would NOT be handed directly over to the US

for crying out loud, even one of the witnesses FOR Assange in British court said that wouldn't happen, and that was the only time that subject was brought up

[a geek named Bob]

139. and you know this how?

look...

at some point, it's going to boil down to a matter of trust.

You trust the Feds, and I don't.

Using the World Court to try this vitiates the possibility that any funny stuff on the part of the USA goes on. If he's guilty, they can hand him to the Swedish correctional system

He blew the whistle on an organization with a whole lot of bad folks in the background. WHY would you trust the USA NOT to try and arrange a grab, from a Swedish holding cell?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

144. why would i trust the feds? i'm not even american

I do however trust the Swedish justice system(insofar one can trust a system), and I'm saying that as a Norwegian

you have not explained why the World Court would want to get involved with this case tho considering there is a valid court for this case(the one in sweden)

I mean seriously, the WC isn't just going to take the case because somebody says 'I don't trust the swedes(or any other country) not to extradite me to the us(or any other country)' without some bloody serious evidence backing that statement(the other countries added if it been another person and not Assange).

[treestar]

138. Why is Sweden not neutral?

I cannot believe there is any country that is acceptable to Julian's followers.

[a geek named Bob]

141. A few things

1.) I'm not a follower of assange
2.) Sweden's already said they won't guarantee him to be immune from being handed over to the USA.

That's enough for me.

3.) Is there some super power Assange has, that would let him escape form a world court hearing?

[treestar]

143. The world courts are not of general jurisdiction

They have to agree to take the case and have a reason under their statute of existence for taking it.

The USA is not seeking Julian and if it did, it does not have kangaroo courts. He should even face the US if what he's done is so proper, but the US has no charges pending and even the grand jury is only talking about him in regards to the Manning case. There are no charges against him!

Sweden does not have to set a precedent of giving him guarantees that no one else could get. Why is this guy above the law? What of the laws that would apply to the rest of us? Why is he special?

[treestar]

137. Read the oft posted stuff on Swedish procedure

Why would they not follow their laws? They have to this point, that's why they don't do it by Skype. They are not required to make exceptions for those who consider themselves about the law?

And I do not want Julian rushed off to rendition prison, but I also consider that not to be a real threat to him and that he's being hysterical or revving up his loyal followers with exaggerated fears.

He has to be under the law like everyone else. I do not accept the premise he's above the law or that he can dictate how it operates. He's no better than the rest of us.

[a geek named Bob]

82. okay then...

1.) The US grabbing him, directly from an embassy, would "look bad."
1a.) It would be easier to apply pressure on Sweden to extradite him on "other charges"
1b.) strangely enough, the charges against him were reinstated just after assange announces he has damning files to release. (So sorry, Sweden only wants him brought back for "questioning&quot .
1c.) If the Swedish government only wants to ask him questions, then they can make a video call.
2.) Given the USA's treatment of Bradley Manning, I think any show trial in the USA is a travesty of justice
3.) Accusing someone of rape/unprotected sex without consent are VERY serious charges, I think they should be investigated. Fully.

Given points 1 - 3, I think we need a trial in a place that won't be in danger of a kangaroo trial. THe best place I can think of (neutral territory) is the World Court.

Mind you, while I think assange is abrasive, I think his work with wikileaks is invaluable. Also, given the nature of the alleged crimes, unless we have truth serum on hand, it's going to turn into "he said, she said."

...sigh...

[treestar]

87. You'd need to find in the Hague Treaty

A basis for it to have jurisdiction. They just don't respond to good ideas from anybody. There is a treaty which sets out the terms for which it takes jurisdiction of a case.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

122. how is it easier to extradite him from sweden on 'other' charges

considering the Brits would need to sign of on such an extradition as well, it would give him a chance to object to the new extradition request in two courts/countries

[a geek named Bob]

131. ...sigh...

it would be kind of hard for assange to protest to 2 extradition orders...

From a cell with no lawyer allowed.

Your faith in the USA not using Sweden to turn him over is touching

I have ZERO trust that the Swedish government/US government wouldn't use the extradition to put him somewhere very very far from everybody.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

133. and where do you get the craziness of assange suddently having no lawyer allowed? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. Televising a rape trial would be an awful idea, for the alleged victims

Especially one in which the defence seems to consist of "this was all consensual at the time". You're asking them to go into minute detail about their sex lives; doing that in front of millions watching on TV is a non-starter.

[a geek named Bob]

65. But it's Treestar's tireless record of performance

that is an inspiration to the rest of us.

[treestar]

70. All you're doing here is proving you have no response to the issue

And that you're getting tired and know you're out of steam.

this guy should face these charges. There's no excuse around that.

[a geek named Bob]

73. really?

Gee...

I keep suggesting that we HAVE the trial, just at the world court.

I just have no faith in Sweden AT ALL, to keep assange out of the hands of the Military Industrial goons of the USA.

So...

1.) When did I say he SHOULDN'T face charges? which post was that?
2.) sounds like YOU are projecting...

thanks for playing.

[sabrina 1]

160. If Assange is tried in Sweden there will be no jury and the trial will be secret.

This case now requires a far more transparent process since so few have any faith in him getting a fair trial under such circumstances. He would also be held in jail, with few visits allowed, until the trial takes place. Sweden has held people for months, even years under these circumstances with no trial.

Considering how the Prosecution has delayed even filing charges in this case, he can look forward to being in prison there for a very long time before the secret trial even begins.

He should never return to Sweden under the current circumstances. He has done exactly the right thing until Sweden makes up its mind whether or not they even have a case. We have yet to see one iota of evidence from them, just 'she said' allegations. Either put up or shut up is what most of the world is telling them. Show us some evidence. Their attorney refuses to do so and still refuses to hand over the evidence to the Defense. Why? What are they afraid of?

[woo me with science]

54. K&R

[KegCreekDem]

80. Kick. n/t

[xchrom]

90. “There was no lack of buyers” – Swedish sex trafficking trial concludes

http://feministire.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/there-was-no-lack-of-buyers-swedish-sex-trafficking-trial-concludes/

It may have escaped your notice if you rely on what the Swedes tell other countries about their sex trafficking problem, but last week several men were convicted for what Swedish prosecutors have called one of the largest trafficking rings of its kind ever uncovered in that country. It involved Romanian women who were brought to Sweden, some of them on the pretence of working in legal industries, and forced to sell sex in various Gothenburg arenas. You can read more about it here, here and here.

I won’t cite all the tragedy porn in those links (though I have no doubt supporters of the Swedish model would, if it had happened in a country where buying sex was legal), but there are a couple things I think are worth drawing attention to. The first is the quote in the title of this post, which comes from the third link. That article goes on to report one of the women’s testimony that she had seven or eight customers on her very first night. This doesn’t say much for the supposed deterrent effect of the sex purchase ban.

The second is the breakdown of ages (in the final link) of the men convicted of buying sex from these women: 36% were born in the 1960s, 21% in the 1970s and 30% in the 1980s. The other 13% aren’t accounted for except to say that the oldest was 76 and the youngest 17. So nearly a third, and perhaps slightly over that, were teenagers when the ban was introduced in 1999: further evidence (as I discussed here) that it hasn’t had the normative effect it was supposed to have on younger men.

The 17-year-old’s conviction is interesting for another reason. If Wikipedia (and all the other links I’ve found by Googling) is correct, Sweden’s age of majority is 18, which means that he is legally still a child. There’s nothing unusual about minors being convicted of crimes, of course, but the way that prostitution is conceptualised in Sweden does make this rather remarkable. The ideology underlying the sex purchase ban is that women cannot choose to sell sex; evidently, however, Swedish law considers that male children (at least of a certain age) can choose to buy it. In other words, when it comes to trading sex for money, adult women are less competent than male children. Could there be any clearer illustration of how this law infantilises women?

[LadyHawkAZ]

155. I've been pointing out for quite a while

that the Swedish model is a failure- there's all sorts of info out there backing it up and has been since very early in the experiment. It does little good when people don't want to hear it. The law is based entirely on the idea that women are naturally mindless babies and men are naturally criminals- what could possibly go wrong there?

[WillyT]

91. K & R !!!

[Egalitarian Thug]

115. Hey, you got all 5 of the "burn Assange" clique with this one. K&R

Good job.

[backscatter712]

116. Indeed! They're all totally butthurt now! n/t

[xchrom]

117. Why, Thenk you Vedy Much!

I try to do my part.

Contemporary Statist supporters really chap my ass.

[CabCurious]

123. because afterall, this is all personal and political... (and has nothing to do with 2 women) nt

[a geek named Bob]

127. when in doubt, back up

and re-state your purple prose...

Well Done!

[sabrina 1]

158. Well, now maybe you are beginning to get it. That is what so many people have been saying

all along, this is political and has nothing to do with the two women.

[Egalitarian Thug]

169. Yep. Nothing whatsoever. You guys pretending that the women are your concern is absolutely

hilarious, more so when a simple search on any of you shows exactly where your agendas lay.

But please, keep up the good work. I'm currently at a loss for a decent book and I've seen all the newer films that are out that aren't insulting in their assumption of an audience with the IQ of a houseplant.

[Puglover]

128. ROFL!

Too funny! "All 5"

[backscatter712]

177. I'm tempted...

Every time one of The Five posts something bashing Assange and Wikileaks, I'm tempted to reply with a post with nothing but "50 Cents!" in honor of the fine group of people who work for the Chinese Government, steering conversations on Chinese forums and social networking sites to ensure that consensus follows the party line. Members of the 50 Cent Party are rumored to be paid 50 cents per post, hence the name.

Or would I be sailing too close to the wind?

[MrMickeysMom]

176. We all know what they're afraid of...

... It's an eternal fear of the truth.

Assange is merely taking place of the fifth estate. People forget history, or do not pay attention to it.