How will Assange be punished for attempting to advance democracy?

It is impossible to formally charge him in a strict legal sense, until he responds to the warrant. I don't think it is beyond your understanding that "charge" is a term that is used beyond the context of a courtroom (omg) in the sense of allegations of blame.

Yay!

Yes!

Yes! We're on a roll here, Bells!

No, that's your mind re-evaluating what you've been thinking all along.

Yes!

Yes! Thank you Bells, I love you.

I still love you, but you don't know that.

They want him for questioning. I suspect they may want DNA too. I don't buy the conspiracy theories that he's going to be tortured in Egypt or tried under the Espionage Act in the USA as part of a Swedish plot- there's just not evidence of anything that extraordinary. If the Swedish, UK, and US governments are all that nefarious, and if they personified this phenomenon in Julian Assange as much as Assange apparently does, then they would most likely just have the Mossad kill him.

To me, this is a lot like the conspiracy theories that the manned moon landings were faked, or airliners and highly-skilled Saudi pilots did not carry out 9-11: The conspiracy theories entail a vastness and complexity of conspiracy that goes far beyond the levels of effort, secrecy, compartmentalization, and casts of conspirators for the simpler explanations: Things happened mostly the way that we were told. Does this mean that authorities never lie to us? Of course not. But ginormous conspiracies involving large numbers of conspirators are hard to keep going, especially under the sort of scrutiny that the topic of this thread is getting.

with you so far, even though the language isn't technically accurate (but I know what you mean here)- Agreed...

Correct, but that is not evidence of a conspiracy.

How precisely do you define "the time of the previous document dump?
How are you sure that this establishes a link?

Do you admit the possibility of further evidence being uncovered in the interim?

That was then. Why are you convinced that the case remained static, with no new evidence revealed?

I doubt if it's any of the above: I don't beleve that the timing convincingly proves that there is no valid case. I do not believe that it is impossible for new evidence to have emerged.



My assertion that Assange should "answer the charges" does not mean to infer that formal charges have been made in court; "Assange should answer the Swedish warrant for questioning with regard to allegations of rape" is technically more correct, but "answer the charges" is a little more handy when playing round-and-round in circular superficial questioning such as I am patiently enduring here in hopes of finding some understanding between us.

If (God forbid) you or someone you care deeply for were raped, would you be satisfied with this degree of legal accountability on the part of an attacker that you could identify and accuse?

Not to the satisfaction of the Prosecutor.

Citation and a UK judicial (not Assange representative) source please, Bells- I challenge that rationale, [that no evidence may have emerged over time].

Mr Justice Duncan Ouseley agreed with a decision by City of Westminister magistrates court earlier in the week to release Assange on strict conditions: £200,000 cash deposit, with a further £40,000 guaranteed in two sureties of £20,000, and strict conditions on his movement.

Assange stood in a dark grey suit in the dock as Ouseley began hearing an appeal by British prosecutors acting on behalf of Sweden.

There was an early sign that the day would go in Assange's favour when Ouseley said: "The history of the way it [the case] has been dealt with by the Swedish prosecutors would give Mr Assange some basis that he might be acquitted following a trial."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange-wikileaks

​

So go to trial!!! If that was true, why should Assange not get an acquittal and move on? What's wrong with this picture, Bells?

You don't know that Bells, and you have not provided here any information exposing a conspiracy, impeaching the Swedish warrant, or proving the absence of new evidence or testimony.


The whole world knows the outline of the charges- well, at least those who take charges of rape seriously in any context.

Evidence; testimony.

No, new evidence meriting further investigation, Bells.

For example?


[Allegations are] That Assange had sex with two Swedish women without their consent. Bail is routinely set in proportion to a client's ability to pay; the purpose of bail is to see a suspect in court.

You do not know that the evidence is unchanged, Bells- You have not shown us why we should assume this.


Assange has a considerable legal defense fund at his disposal. Whether that fund was intended by most donors for defense against charges of sexual predation is debatable.

No, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you as you go in circles (you do recall this don't you?) - all Assange's / WL's bank accounts have not been frozen- some (not all) donations were shut down, but anyone serious about donating to WL and Assange's legal defense can easily circumvent those hiccups through dierect accounts. Donations have not been cut off, and all WL accounts have not been frozen. Lawyers are busily working and getting paid. Now you can say that's not WL/Assange assets at work, but he's getting a lot more help than Braqdley Manning. Pro bono legal work for a suspect with millions on ice is still about the money: "Frozen" money isn't liquid, but it isn't out of the reach of forward-looking contracts, either.

I'll grant that many WL accounts are frozen, but this does not mean they do not provide credit, or that Assange does not have sources of legal funds adequate to defend himself from the allegations in Sweden.

The Swedish prosecutor has categorically stated that the only way Assange can be extradited to the USA is if the UK says so- whether or not Assange faces charges in Sweden.

Yes they do, Bells: As I have shown you with quoted official Swedish reference, Sweden does not have the authority to extradite Assange to the USA without UK say-so.

It is not reasonable to expect that Sweden will collaborate or contribute in special rendition of Assange because of the legal precedent: Sweden doesn't do special renditions any more. Swedes hate it, and they put the smack-down on their government for it. Times have changed considerably in terms of European countries (incliding Sweden) cooperating in special rendition over the past few years- they don't like it, and it isn't easy for foreign governments to pressure them into it- especially in a case in which terrorism and islamophobia do not enter in.

I'm sorry Bells, but Assange has backers (mentioned in your reference but not in your quote who are keeping him well afloat. Assange was able to raise a substantial bond with his "frozen" assets. Now, (with your tactics I must emphasize) I don't agree with the freezing of WL accounts and donation portals, but understand that these are not at the instigation of Sweden. Although I'll agree with you (if you see it this way) that there are elements of conspiracy in Washington's influence on world banks, it's a stretch to suggest that Sweden is behind account holds, or that Assange is financially crippled from mounting what has thus far been a quite vigorous evasion and defense from the allegations.



The charge is rape. Let's please get the basics straight.

You haven't been following this thread very closely, have you.

Yes! This is true, Bells.

This is with reference to the (careful Bells OMG!) rape charges.

Agreed, Bells.

It would be simpler to concoct and carry out a conspiracy to do away with Assange right where he is, rather than involving the courts of one of the most avid free-speech nations on the planet. This conspiracy theory is no better substantiated than the average 9-11 "truther" hokum.

I know we're just talking past each other, so this is a good place to let it be: I don't see compelling reason to expect Assange to get the special-rendition enemy-combatant treatment. You don't accept the reasons why i don't think that authorities could get away with it. I think that theory would have made a bit more sense months or even a year or two ago, before Sweden had owned up to and officially repudiated special renditions, and before there was so much public attention on Assange. Pulling it off now is about as plausible and feasible as the theory of a "chemtrail" agenda. Sympathy with WikiLeaks and free speech does not necessitate buying into this sort of thing without good reason. I suspect that beliefs in sensational unknowns may be part of a cult of sensationalism that serves as a replacement for what becomes, in situations of much squaring-off into camps of belief, a determined rebellion against the discomforting drudgery of reason and critical thinking- easier to just take up all of the cries of conspiracy of "our side", throw it out, and see what sticks. If anyone challenges such impulses, then talk fast and don't let them corner you about unsettling things like facts; change the subject; fisk; declare it's all connected in one big conspiracy; anyone disagreeing must be on the wrong side of all of us.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gotta go- here's a related perspective, better expressed than I have managed here:

politicsusa.com: Why Progressives are Wrong about Julian Assange

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

one of sci's most important no no's is that mods do not moderate threads they participate in. hype has repeatedly flouted this convention both here and elsewhere. he is unfit and should either resign or be removed from his post

there has been a clear pattern of misconduct spanning at least two threads as attested by at least 5 individuals...bells, gustav, cptbork, quad and geoffp, which by sci's standards is a fairly overwhelming consensus.

we do not sanction for a difference of opinion or any particular interpretation. all we can do as a response is to challenge it while allowing it to stand without being subjected to censure and penalties.

what is paramount is the welfare of sci, the community and the freedom of expression.

you don't like? well here is a fervent plea....fuck off

 

hahaha
good one buddy
its also strange how sci's female contingent, all potential victims mind you, express their solidarity....

hahaha
what would they know anyway.

 

The thing about -isms is that the in-group gets to pick its battles and trade on their credibility accordingly. The out-group has to stay on one sidewalk or the other, or they get run over.

But on the other hand, if the in-group fails to refill its gas tank with credibility now and again, there ceases to be any traffic to speak of, and the road becomes more like a tailgate party for whoever wants to show up.

 

another woman, a swede, throws in her two cents.....

US bloggers, twitterers, night show hosts and feminists have taken on the #Assange case and declared it a date rape, the accusing women, rape victims, and that we still live in a rape society. The accusors Ardin and Wilen are helpless victims, who without having a chance to defend themselves in media are described as tools of CIA, and hysterical and while the women are being smeared, Assange and his lawyers can speak freely.

Obviously most of us that have followed the case from the beginning and have bothered to read all documents in the case in Swedish have another opinion about the women, the case and Assange's role. The exceptions are the feminists who have another agenda than many average Swedes who believe in legal justice and gender equality.

Let me give you a background and some viewpoints from a Swedish woman, myself, who has followed the case for many reasons, one is that my family knows the Ardin family and I grew up on Gotland, went to the same high school and university as Anna Ardin and just cannot understand her behaviour and I think her actions have caused damage to the gender equality debate and progress. I just cannot understand why a feminist, professional, employed as press secretary and paid to coordinate Assange's visit in Sweden, would go to bed with him in the first place, then proudly indicate that she had a special relationship with him and at the same time tell her friends that he was the worst lover she had and later go to the police and accuse him of rape? Who is the victim here?

The Assange case has some interesting parallells to the biggest legal scandal in Swedish justice history, the Thomas Quick case.

Thomas Quick was acquitted of a murder when chief prosecutor Eva Finne decided to drop the case because there was not enough technical evidence to convict Quick. Quick was convicted of eight murders most of the convictions were based on his confessions. He recently retracted all his confessions and together with his lawyer plan to appeal the remaining seven murder convictions. Wikipedia has an excellent summary of the case in English. Claes Borgstrom was Thomas Quick's defense lawyer and has been heavily critizised for being passive and not doing a good job defending his client while raking in millions of kronor from the state and making himself a name by defending an alleged serial killer.

The fact that Eva Finne threw out the case due to lack of evidence is an obvious blow to Claes Borgstrom's competence and motives as a defense lawyer and to many it looks like more than a coincidence that after Eva Finne dropped the rape charges against Assange, Claes Borgstrom gets involved and his friend and colleague Marianne Ny re-opens the case. Another question I ask myself is why Ardin and Wilen, I know at least that Ardin is a well educated, updated, professional woman, would like to be represented by Claes Borgstrom considering his track record with the Quick case. Did they get some sorts of promises from him that they would win the case and possibly get a huge settlement and instant fame?

The Thomas Quick case has shown Swedes that there are some grave problems with the Swedish legal system where a chief prosecutor can use almost any means to prove his or her case, we now know how the chief prosecutor of the Thomas Quick case, abused his powers to get the convictions and that several others, possibly even the defense lawyer Claes Borgstrom, cooperated with the chief prosecutor to get the convictions. Few doubt that Quick will be acquitted of the other seven murders. Obviously this is a very, very bad situation where we now know that eight murderers are still free an might have murdered and murder again. And another question arise, how many innocent people do we have in Swedish prisons?

Interestingly enough Hogsta Domstolen, the Supreme Court and final instance in civil and criminal cases, published a verdict in an alleged child rape case yesterday. The convicted rapist was acquitted after having spent four years in prison on a conviction based on the story of his son. The accused had divorced his son's and other three children's mother and for some time the son had lived with his father and he claimed that during that period he was sexually abused by his father and on the allegations made by the son the father was convicted of child rape. The Supreme Court writes amongst other things "for a conviction in a sexual crime case, the court must, like in other criminal cases, prove beyond doubt, in the investigation presented, that the accused is guilty." The Court makes some conclusions as well that will serve as guidelines for the lower courts in sexual criminal cases like this when a case is based solely on someones words: "In this case, as in many sexual cases, the judgement of the trustworthiness of the accuser is central......possible alternative explanations to the accusor's actions before and during the trial shall be considered....The fact that the accusor is considered more trustworthy than the accused is obviously not enough for a conviction....The fact that a person and his/her story appear as trustworthy does not mean that the information is correct. It might be connected with the fact that for some reason, the person is convinced that he/she tells the truth, eventhough the information can be partly based on imagination, confusion or suggestion, other external effects on the memory....further, the actions of the accusor immediately after the alleged crime and his/her general behaviour...special considerations must be taken to indications that the accusor's information can be less credible due, for example, possible personal hostilities between the accusor and the accused, that the accusor might need a reason to explain a relation to his/her family, or that the accusor might have other reasons to make untruthful allegations against the accused. Also the temptation that might exist within certain accusors to get a settlement shall be considered."

This verdict and the conclusions made by the Supreme Court is an attempt to protect the real victims of sexual assaults as well as the falsely accused and to assure that the Swedish legal system is not abused for personal vendettas.

This verdict and its conclusions indicate, at least to me, that Marianne Ny hasn't got enough for a trial in the Assange case and that Assange has no reason to go to Sweden to answer her questions.

The leaked documents from the investigation of the case shows that Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen didn't seem to be traumatised after the alleged sexual abuse, Anna Ardin claimed in August that Assange had not been violent to her and she did not feel threatened by him, only that he had a lousy way with women, that combined with her friend's testimony that Anna Ardin claimed that he was a lousy lover, indicates that she, before she talked to Sofia Wilen, showed no signs of having been sexually assaulted, in later interrogations, she claims that she was thinking to herself while having sex with Assange, "I do hope this is over soon". Sofia Wilen seems to be more concerned about having contracted an SDT than anything else, and the prosecutor then made a rape case out of having consensual sex without a condom and the fact that Assange might have had sex with Wilen while she was napping or half awake as she said in interrogations. One lesson learned from above, men cannot read thoughts and maybe not body language from women they hardly know, so if you want someone to stop, say no. Do we need to ask our governments every time we think or felt we were abused, is this the system we want?

I do not think this case should be compared to date-rapes or to be used by feminists and others to claim that "the absolute epidemic of rape and sexual assault that we face in this society has become that much clearer to me, the list of women I know who are rape survivors has become much, much longer since I posted it on Saturday" writes journalist Sady Doyle on her blog tigerbeatdown.com

Jeeez, "rape survivor" now she is trying to surf on the whole "I am a breast cancer survivor" industry here in the US to get the attention. Yes, there are plenty of rape victims in the world and some do not survive to tell her story some do.

More from tigerbeatdown.com

"We made it clear that journalists - men and women - who do this, who minimize and misrepresent those claims, who leak those names, who endanger those women, are going to face consequences. And those consequences might be bigger than anything they've ever seen before; bigger than anything they had any reason to expect."

Full blown American shock- jock rethoric. We need a debate and we need to dare to look at rape accusations from both sides, had the Swedish police and the Swedish prosecutor not leaked the first interview protocols with Ardin and Wilen to the tabloid Expressen, that decided to publish the name of the accused as he was famous, of course, it became of public interest who accused Assange. Remember that one of the sharpest and best female prosceutors in Sweden, who had to guts to stand up to the male mafia that run the Thomas Quick case into a legal disaster, dismissed the alleged rape accusations. Let the debate go on and show some respect to both sides.

So far nothing impressive from the US bloggers, twitters etc, more than cheap tricks to get 15 minutes of fame. ​

 

/arf

bells dear
you sputtering around on fumes?

ok look
you are in a safe place
do you or do you not, want to have assange's babies?
are you or are you not, insanely jealous of the two swedish....bitches?

:bugeye:

 

This is off-topic, but merits a sidebar. I won't "feed the troll" here further. As I have tried to do for hours Gustav- You can discuss this with me like a gentleman in Private Messages- There is no need to further derail this thread.

Would you please quote the rule, Gustav?

We'll put it to the test- I'm accountable here.

Thanks for letting us in on the agenda, Gustav.

You were flagged for flaming, insulting a fellow member, and off-topic posting.

If you don't flame, insult other members, and make aggravated off-topic posts, interfere with the volunteers who police the forum, or violate other forum rules, then you will not receive warnings and infractions.

Thank you- That's what this is all about in my view as well.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, Gustav.

 

In most countries continuing the act of consensual intercourse with a shredded tyre does not constitute rape. But yes, granted, under Swedish law, its rape.

Hype, I understand your position and its perfectly reasonable. Given the actual allegations, I remain skeptical and as I mentioned my gut feel o` dometer is red lining.

I also appreciate your position on Assange`s integrity, or the present dubiousness thereof, as the spokesperson for what is a vitally important outlet for transparency and accountability. I have wrestled with this point for a while, and for credibilities sake, yes perhaps he should do the right thing and go to Sweden to clear himself. Sadly, I do not believe the agents of the dark side have the slightest interest in doing the right thing, thus I believe right now, that its in his own interest to stay put.

That was a cynical jest on my part Hype and not intended as an insinuation. I agree that celebrity pale males, or just the general run of the mill person of non Middle Eastern appearance, do not just fall off the face of the planet.

And as I mentioned, your logic is perfectly sound. I simply do not trust the system. Do you honestly believe the Swedish authorities would have pursued this intense legal onslaught if the perp was a lesser individual of absolutely no note?

 

why? you cannot figure out the merits and rationale behind such a "convention"? you are clearly unfit

no need, just step the fuck down

i am not contesting the moderation just the timing and motivation
why dont you prove your impartiality by flagging every single post in this thread that can be deemed offtopic and infract accordingly? would you like me to present them in my next post? you are a moderator of em&j, yes?

/snicker

you should not have ignored quad's admonition.......

goddamn disingenuous noob

/arf

 

meaningless garbage
try starting off with faulty premises and see where "perfectly sound logic" takes you

 

Sadly, given the fickle age we live in, we would move on to the next news cycle, contrived or other. :m:

 

It does if the fuckee tells you to stop, or had conditioned said consent on the proper usage of a condom to begin with.

Why is WikiLeaks, in particular, vitally important - above and beyond the manifold other, similar leak sites around today? What exactly would a conviction of Assange cost us, in such terms?

I see you have constructed a new light saber. Your skills are complete. Indeed you are powerful as the Emperor has foreseen.

Assange's "own interest" is not the issue.

Just as it may be in the interest of an innocent party to avoid politicized prosecution, it is in the "own interest" of a guilty rapist not to get caught and punished, no? Or of any criminal to get away with crimes. So Assange's self-interest is an irrelevancy.

The entire point of a criminal justice system is squaring such interests with one another, and with the general interests of society. An end which is pointedly not serviced by the advancement of politicized excuses for avoiding the justice system.

A reasonable enough position, I suppose.

But why do you trust Assange, or WikiLeaks, or whoever else?

Hard to say - first you'd have to account for the fact that none of us would ever hear about such a prosecution in the first place. It's not like Swedish jurisprudence regularly makes international news, so we really have no way of guaging what is the normal level of prosecutorial vigor there.

It may be unfair that public figures and celebrities generally get subjected to greater legal scrutiny. But there are countervailing effects of celebrity that motivate this to begin with (how many posts have you dedicated to skepticism of any other rape charges in Sweden? How many organizations worldwide help out with their legal defense and advocacy?). And anyway, prosecuting the guilty isn't really unfair to begin with - what's unfair is that non-famous criminals often stand better odds of escaping justice.

 

And which various leak organizations would have their due chance of influencing, with or without Assange's participation, no?

 

Its far from a faulty premise. Try getting your head around things and out of the dark space it presently occupies. :m:

 

i see.
then what to purpose do you provide these clauses.......

..?

 

And post coitus, blow out or not, the f@ckee throws a party in the f@ckers honour. I have never come across (pardon the pun) a violated victim throwing a party in honour of her rapist. What the hell?

Wikileaks is obviously important in context of this thread. I am all for this type of information sharing whoever they may be. I welcome Openleaks with anticipation. Hopefully more will follow.

Touche. You are indeed astute.

Of course it is. Would you throw yourself to the wolves?

Let it be noted, I am not, nor have I ever said, Assange is innocent of alleged sexual misconduct. I, and the public in general, do not yet have all the facts around the allegations, nor their consequences. All in this regard will no doubt be revealed in the fullness of time.

Yet a brief review of this extraordinary situation is clearly indicative that political pressure is overwhelmingly apparent. Government officials have used the term assassination. Et tu, Brute?

I never said I trust either. IMO Assange has plenty human failings, including a rampant libido, which I believe he should better control. I have often wondered whether Wikileaks is a front for the dark forces? :m:

Fair enough. Gut feel?

Well said.

Yes, of course, and a valid point.

 

We are waiting for the BIG one. A revelation that is too BIG to ignore, even by the complicit media. :m: