Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

I had also heard that the US government has recently openly stated that his arrest is a priority.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/21/us-wants-to-arrest-julian-assange-but-uk-suggests-sweden-comes-first
http://www.salon.com/2017/04/21/jeff-sessions-announces-it-will-seek-charges-against-julian-assange-for-wikileaks-publishing/

Given that his PRIMARY REASON for hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy has been to evade US extradition, citing that Sweden would hand him over, and that the US has routinely DENIED any such desire in the past-- which is the basis for all the animosity against Assange refusing to leave the embassy to face charges in Sweden over the rape allegations, and subsequent smear campaigns--  It just looks like the US and Sweden are tired of playing the charade, and are willing to just be brazen in public about their plans to arrest him for purely political reasons.

Dont take this the wrong way-- Assange is a douchebag who screws women without condoms contrary to prior concessions for consent-- He still remains a douchebag. He is however a douchebag that was improperly smeared by a major PR campaign to do that smearing, because he wouldnt bend over and let the big bad US government put him GITMO, and instead continues to air dirty laundry that the US Govt finds disfavorable, and has been trapped inside a tiny squalid building for nearly a decade now because of it.

To me, that strongly reinforce Assange's claims that the rape investigation was just a front to get him out of the embassy, and into US custody for "special interrogation" at Guantanamo.

Given the Trump Admin's openly brazen foreign policy, the dropping of the charade and open admission through these actions is pretty damned telling.

[Reelya]

IDK, the original statements even several months after the incident was that he did wear a condom, but it broke and sex still went on. So the woman wanted him tested for STDs, no hint of rape charges. Either person could have had an STD. If you're having sex and a condom breaks then both parties male or female could have STDs so both should be charged or neither. It's a double standard (and patriarchal attitude) that the man is the active partner, the woman merely passive.

That's what all the media was saying a good 5-6 months after the incident and nobody was contradicting that narrative:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/latest-on-julian-assanges-sex-crimes-sex-without-a-condom-is-rape-in-sweden-says-a-swede-2010-12?r=US&IR=T

Only later when people started ridiculing the charges, they started to change the story. Maybe those were the correct details all along but it seems weird that if he did things which were clearly rape why they originally dropped all the charges, let him go, charged him again, presented a very weak case to the media, then gradually ramped up the allegations when people scoffed at what they originally told us.

[sluissa]

I don't remember the condom breaking as part of the news, I was under the impression they'd had sex the night before with a condom, then the next morning he initiated again while she was asleep and it was without a condom. Although your article contradicts that... so I don't know...

I do remember, nothing specific, but that there were some suspicious connections between her and some people with interest in arresting him that made it seem like it might have been a setup. Or if not a setup, an after the fact excuse to try to grab him. But again, I'd have to go back and research it to be sure.

[Sheb]

I think it's not so much rape as something untranslatable from the Swedes. Even the English versionis like "Lesser rape". I also think Sweden just got tired and saw that nothing was moving on, and now the US is reduced to try to get the UK to arrest him on stupid bail jumping charge.

[Reelya]

I don't remember the condom breaking as part of the news, I was under the impression they'd had sex the night before with a condom, then the next morning he initiated again while she was asleep and it was without a condom. Although your article contradicts that... so I don't know...

Originally, according to 2010 media articles she also messaged someone that they'd had sex while she was "half asleep" early in the morning, so it's not even clear about that point. I've never heard that specific point actually contradicted. Half asleep and actually asleep are completely different circumstances.

BTW, here's some random googling of a bunch of far-worse incidents that went completely unpunished in Sweden (warning, graphic details)
https://feministire.com/2014/04/03/we-need-to-talk-about-swedens-problem-with-rape-and-consent/
Which shows, nope, it is completely abnormal how they treated Assange, even according to Sweden.

[Sheb]

I don't remember the condom breaking as part of the news, I was under the impression they'd had sex the night before with a condom, then the next morning he initiated again while she was asleep and it was without a condom. Although your article contradicts that... so I don't know...

Originally, according to 2010 media articles she also messaged someone that they'd had sex while she was "half asleep" early in the morning, so it's not even clear about that point. I've never heard that specific point actually contradicted. Half asleep and actually asleep are completely different circumstances.

BTW, here's some random googling of a bunch of far-worse incidents that went completely unpunished in Sweden (warning, graphic details)
https://feministire.com/2014/04/03/we-need-to-talk-about-swedens-problem-with-rape-and-consent/
Which shows, nope, it is completely abnormal how they treated Assange, even according to Sweden.

To be fair, Assange ALSO got entirely unpunished, as his case never made it even to pre-trial. All those case made it to court.

[wierd]

His plaintiff withdrew her case, the swedish court just pressed the matter anyway.

Assange was willing to answer their questions, either in person at the embassy, OR over a teleconference. The swedish court just refused both of those sensible attempts at compromise.

Sometime last year, they finally relented, and allowed questioning at the embassy.
https://www.rt.com/news/366828-assange-interrogation-embassy-case/

This did not resolve the "WE WANT ASSANGE IN OUR CUSTODY!" mantra of the EU and US courts though.

The "We need him to come and answer some questions" bullshit was a terrible ruse-- he was more than willing to answer their questions-- just not outside the embassy. They wanted him outside of the embassy, they did not really want him to answer their stupid questions.

[Reelya]

Yeah, if you read this timeline of the events then you can see that Assange was basically doing everything to comply with what they asked for, for actually quite a long time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9343503/Julian-Assange-rape-accusations-timeline.html

This part was telling:

July 14 - Clare Montgomery, representing the Swedish authorities, tells a judge that two women who accused Assange of sexual assault did not freely consent to his advances but felt "trapped" into "submitting to his will".

In light of this:
https://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

Proposed reforms of Swedish rape laws would introduce a test of whether the unequal power relations between the parties might void the sincerely expressed consent of one party. In this case, presumably, the politically active Ardin, with experience fielding gender equity complaints as a gender equity officer at Uppsala University, had her will suborned by Assange’s celebrity. The prosecutor coming as she does from a prosecution “Development Unit” could achieve this broadening of the law during Assange’s trial so he can be convicted of a crime that didn’t exist at the time he allegedly committed it.

Basically, after the event of Assange they tried to retroactively make it a crime to have consensual sex with someone of less social standing than yourself, basically saying "unequal power relations" make consent moot, and that lines up with their assertion that the alpha-male dominance of Assange made the women unable to properly consent.

So the prosecutors in Sweden were pushing a specific narrative about Assange, while at the same time trying to push through changes to the law which would have criminalized that narrative.

[smjjames]

@reelya: That is right up there with the BS that Republicans (and on occasion, the Dems, who aren't immune to that behavior) say about rape and all that.

[wierd]

If you have been following the case, Assange has been the subject of a very dedicated smear campaign to malign his public image, to discredit him, and make him less important as a public figure-- following the US and EU's failed attempts to get him out of the embassy for trial punishment.

Is the guy some innocent angel? No. Has he been systematically mistreated by the court system, and by the press? YES.

[Reelya]

Hmm? the main point in my last post is that they were trying to change the law to criminalize a certain narrative, at the same time as painting Assange to fit that narrative. That in itself is pretty suspicious. That makes you question the motives and the rest of the details. if you're being charged with crimes and those crimes don't match the legal code well enough so they want to retroactively change the law itself, then it's beyond just asking whether you're guilty or not.

~~~

The other point is that the things Assange is accused of aren't actually criminal offenses in the USA. Basically nobody's ever been charged with rape for talking someone into sex without a condom, or if they keep going after the condom broke. I can't find any known cases in the USA. So it's not rape according to the US legal system, but it's reported as Assange being charged with rape, when rape isn't even a Swedish word, so they had to deliberately translate it that way. When English-speaking people hear rape they think it means what would be considered rape, the top-tier sexual assault charge possible in the US or UK system, yet the actual charge is for something that's below even the minumum standard for any sort of crime in the US or UK system. that's prejudicial reporting.

[Sheb]

If you have been following the case, Assange has been the subject of a very dedicated smear campaign to malign his public image, to discredit him, and make him less important as a public figure-- following the US and EU's failed attempts to get him out of the embassy for trial punishment.

Is the guy some innocent angel? No. Has he been systematically mistreated by the court system, and by the press? YES.

1) The EU doesn't have jack shit to do with that. If you're going to randomly pick international organization to blame, at least pick a funny one like ASEAN or UNASUR.
2) Yeah, there certainly was a smear campaign. But I'm not certain of Sweden's culpability there.
3) About Sweden "refusing both of those sensible attempts at compromise": what justice system want to establish the precedent that suspects can negotiate their terms?

[smjjames]

Pretty sure the US also wants him for being a stool pigeon to Russia and his involvement with Russian intel. At least that's the unofficial reason I believe.

His whole hateboner for Clinton (which isn't a crime) and collaborating with Russian intelligence certainly didn't help matters.

[wierd]

If you have been following the case, Assange has been the subject of a very dedicated smear campaign to malign his public image, to discredit him, and make him less important as a public figure-- following the US and EU's failed attempts to get him out of the embassy for trial punishment.

Is the guy some innocent angel? No. Has he been systematically mistreated by the court system, and by the press? YES.

1) The EU doesn't have jack shit to do with that. If you're going to randomly pick international organization to blame, at least pick a funny one like ASEAN or UNASUR.
2) Yeah, there certainly was a smear campaign. But I'm not certain of Sweden's culpability there.
3) About Sweden "refusing both of those sensible attempts at compromise": what justice system want to establish the precedent that suspects can negotiate their terms?

1) WRONG. The EU (and thus its member nations, including sweden, and at the time, the UK) has a mutual extradition agreement with the US.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/LV/TXT/?uri=URISERV:jl0053

If Assange left the embassy, and entered EU territory jurisdiction (which he would have the very instant he left the building), The US was just a phone call away from having him.

2) The same people with authority boners, on both sides of the pond, wanted him in custody, and punished. As Reelya points out, the swedish prosecution and law making process was actively trying to retroactively classify his conduct as a crime, just so they could punish him.

3) Given that there is extreme diplomatic issues at stake here, a little leniency given the extraordinary circumstances was more than warranted. But no. Of course not, their demands that he leave the embassy, and thus be subject to deportation was totally justified because of legal precedent fears. Totally. (rolls eyes.)

[Cruxador]

Proposed reforms of Swedish rape laws would introduce a test of whether the unequal power relations between the parties might void the sincerely expressed consent of one party. In this case, presumably, the politically active Ardin, with experience fielding gender equity complaints as a gender equity officer at Uppsala University, had her will suborned by Assange’s celebrity. The prosecutor coming as she does from a prosecution “Development Unit” could achieve this broadening of the law during Assange’s trial so he can be convicted of a crime that didn’t exist at the time he allegedly committed it.

Basically, after the event of Assange they tried to retroactively make it a crime to have consensual sex with someone of less social standing than yourself, basically saying "unequal power relations" make consent moot, and that lines up with their assertion that the alpha-male dominance of Assange made the women unable to properly consent.

Fuck's sake, did they even consider the social ramifications of this kind of law? That would make relationships and marriage across social lines invalid, de facto enforcing a classist society.