Jump to content

The Assange/Wikileaks/Manning Thread


Ads

Recommended Posts

He penetrated her vagina with his penis. That's not in question.

The prosecution argument is that consent was only conditional upon the use of a condom. The victim has given qualified consent only.

Under the SOA 2003 I am struggling to see how he would be able to rely upon a reasonable belief that consent had been provided when (a) he was aware consent was qualified, (B) the victim was asleep.

Please have a re-read of the High Court Judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short answer about how swedish laws views rape. Well, it can't be done short, really. But they're tightened up, as I said. And mostly for a good cause. The thing is that a rape, to violent someone elses body in a very humiliating way, is among the worst crimes. It can't be tolerated in any way. I don't think our law is wrong on that one. There are other swedish laws that are far more dubious, sts.

Anyway, I might be narrow minded, definitely, but my stance on this is that I don't care about wikileaks or what Assange's done apart from this. I've found it kind of funny that he's afraid of being alterated (new word for me, the right one?) if he comes to Sweden to get a trial. I just hope that he comes over here and get what he deserves for what he's done or not done here.

And I can support what you say about him and Bush. But I just don't think that one thing excludes the other. I wouldn't mind Bush being charged for what he's done, but if not that doesn't mean to me that Assange should go free. And I think what he's done is, as usual, for good and bad.

Work now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're still being broad-minded, we might also be asking the bigger question: Why has a minor case like this come to extradition,

Because he will not answer the accusations in Sweden voluntarily!! By the way, do you really interpret rape as a minor case??

and would it do so if JA wasn't such a high profile individual with powerful enemies?

Yes, rape is a serious crime so any such allegations have to be answered regardless of who they are made against.

Also your attempt at moral equivalence between Assange's rape allegation and George W Bush's record is simply misdirection. Assange is wanted for questioning by legitimate authorities in connection with alleged rape. No formal allegations by a legitimate legal authority have been made against Bush - I'm afraid George Galloway and the Stop The War Coalition really don't count.

Do you now accept that under Swedish law Julian Assange has a case to answer and that he should be compelled to do so?

He has said that he will answer the case BY Sweden - In the Equadorean embassy: Same result, same likelihood of finding the truth, just no extradition.

And yes, I absolutely do believe that THIS case of "rape", in THESE circumstances is a minor case, if a case at all.

The word rape should be reserved for describing sex forced on someone who would never consent to it. To use it in a sense like this, which is at very best a loose definition of the word, is to make light of the suffering of REAL rape victims. Real rape victims do not consent to sex with the rapist, do not follow him around before and after the rape, do not tell everyone what a great time they're having with the rapist after being raped, and do not wait until their feelings are hurt before going to the police, if they go to the police at all.

And most important of all, it's clear that one of the main areas where we differ is on just whom we bestow the title of "Legitimate Authority". Personally I think you overrate these Legitimate Authorities, who are themselves human, and have to answer to governments, politicians and security organisations. Accepting blindly what they say at all times is asking for trouble in my opinion, although seemingly no in yours. Maybe this is the point where we can agree to disagree.

Crackpot, the mistake you appear to be making is applying Australian legal definitions where they do not apply. Sweden want to question JA over an alleged offence, commited in Sweden, in contravension of Swedish law. They requested that JA is extradited accordingly, since JA refused to return of his own free will. Rather than clear his name, JA has run into an embassy of a nation he has no connection with (why he didn't choose his own Australian one is a question that I'd be interested to see him answer).

There is no question that Sweden will come to him to question him. No nation on earth allows potential suspects to state the time and venue of questioning - JA's "offer" is a pathetic attempt to claw back some sense of reasonableness to explain his behaviour.

I would again stress that they "well those nasty Vikings will pack me off to the US" arguement he has used so far holds no water anyway. The US have not requested his extradition as of yet, and besides I believe I am right in saying the European Human Rights legislation prevents extradition to nations that exercise the death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know that the final paragraph isn't mine, but an extract from paragraph 124 of the High Court judgment?

Yep, I gathered that, and they have a point, which was why I wrote what I wrote underneath.

There are vested interests in discrediting Assange, the case against him is very much less than open-and-shut, and the whole thing is just too convenient for the US for it to be treated without suspicion. I'm truly amazed at how many people ARE treating it without suspicion.

Still haven't watched the doco, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short answer about how swedish laws views rape. Well, it can't be done short, really. But they're tightened up, as I said. And mostly for a good cause. The thing is that a rape, to violent someone elses body in a very humiliating way, is among the worst crimes. It can't be tolerated in any way. I don't think our law is wrong on that one. There are other swedish laws that are far more dubious, sts.

Anyway, I might be narrow minded, definitely, but my stance on this is that I don't care about wikileaks or what Assange's done apart from this. I've found it kind of funny that he's afraid of being alterated (new word for me, the right one?) if he comes to Sweden to get a trial. I just hope that he comes over here and get what he deserves for what he's done or not done here.

And I can support what you say about him and Bush. But I just don't think that one thing excludes the other. I wouldn't mind Bush being charged for what he's done, but if not that doesn't mean to me that Assange should go free. And I think what he's done is, as usual, for good and bad.

Work now.

Fair enough, I just don't want to see his good Wikileaks work undone by something that could and should have been perfectly well resolved by the individuals concerned, with a slap in the face, perhaps. I'm pretty sure that is how 99.999% of these matters would end, where ordinary people are involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He penetrated her vagina with his penis. That's not in question.

The prosecution argument is that consent was only conditional upon the use of a condom. The victim has given qualified consent only.

Under the SOA 2003 I am struggling to see how he would be able to rely upon a reasonable belief that consent had been provided when (a) he was aware consent was qualified, (B) the victim was asleep.

Please have a re-read of the High Court Judgment.

In the para you quoted, let's take a look at this bit:

it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom

It's interesting that it runs "asleep" together with "half asleep". One is a state of unconsciousness, the other not. I wonder if Swedish law really fails to distinguish the two? Most of the comment on this from those hostile to Assange refer to SW as being asleep. I understood from what I've read that she referred to being "half asleep".

The second point is about whether he reasonably expected that she would consent to sex without a condom. From the accounts I've read, paraphrasing, the exchange between them went something like "What are you wearing?" "I'm wearing you." "I hope you haven't got Aids".

If that is accurate, then I would have said it would be reasonable for him to believe at that point that she consented. Whether before that exchange he could be said to be engaged in rape I suppose comes down to whether he understood the strength of her feelings on the use of condoms or whether he incorrectly thought it was just a preference, rather than the very strongly held view which by all accounts she has.

Those things are for a court to judge, if it gets that far (I understand SW refused to sign her statement when she became aware the police were considering a rape charge, though I don't know if this makes a difference).

My point is that where we keep hearing that he initiated sex with her while she was asleep, that he continued in the absence of consent to unprotected sex, and that this is clearly rape, in fact this is contested, contentious, and very far from being the simple truth which some like to make out.

Should he face the charges, if any are laid? Yes.

Is it reasonable for him to suspect that there is an intent on the part of the US to get their hands on him by whatever means possible? Absolutely.

It would be helpful in resolving the Swedish issue if means could be found to remove the second as an obstacle to the first. But there seems to be no appetite to do so. I wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crackpot, the mistake you appear to be making is applying Australian legal definitions where they do not apply. Sweden want to question JA over an alleged offence, commited in Sweden, in contravension of Swedish law. They requested that JA is extradited accordingly, since JA refused to return of his own free will. Rather than clear his name, JA has run into an embassy of a nation he has no connection with (why he didn't choose his own Australian one is a question that I'd be interested to see him answer).

Oh Eames, bless you, you are sooo TRUSTING. The Aussies are even less likely to stand up to the US than the Brits are. Obviously he would have gone to the Aussies if they hadn't washed their hands of him beforehand (which they did).

Don't you think that if something is not against the law in one country we are right to at least question that law in another country?

There is no question that Sweden will come to him to question him. No nation on earth allows potential suspects to state the time and venue of questioning - JA's "offer" is a pathetic attempt to claw back some sense of reasonableness to explain his behaviour.
...in one way of looking at it. In another, it's a genuine offer to allow the truth to emerge without the risk (as perceived by JA) of removal to the US.

I would again stress that they "well those nasty Vikings will pack me off to the US" arguement he has used so far holds no water anyway. The US have not requested his extradition as of yet, and besides I believe I am right in saying the European Human Rights legislation prevents extradition to nations that exercise the death penalty.
This is where I'm not sure, as I've admitted to, and I doubt you have more information than I do on the subject. If you do, please share. All I know is that Assange does not want to be extradited, and personally I don't believe that this is because he fears doing time in Sweden. Not when the US are aching to have him for breakfast every day for the next million years - THAT has to be his real fear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're still being broad-minded, we might also be asking the bigger question: Why has a minor case like this come to extradition,

Because he will not answer the accusations in Sweden voluntarily!! By the way, do you really interpret rape as a minor case??

and would it do so if JA wasn't such a high profile individual with powerful enemies?

Yes, rape is a serious crime so any such allegations have to be answered regardless of who they are made against.

Also your attempt at moral equivalence between Assange's rape allegation and George W Bush's record is simply misdirection. Assange is wanted for questioning by legitimate authorities in connection with alleged rape. No formal allegations by a legitimate legal authority have been made against Bush - I'm afraid George Galloway and the Stop The War Coalition really don't count.

Do you now accept that under Swedish law Julian Assange has a case to answer and that he should be compelled to do so?

He has said that he will answer the case BY Sweden - In the Equadorean embassy: Same result, same likelihood of finding the truth, just no extradition.

As stated above, who does this little prick think he is to dictate the terms of how and when he will answer questions related to an alleged offence??

And yes, I absolutely do believe that THIS case of "rape", in THESE circumstances is a minor case, if a case at all.

I'd like to see you make that argument to a feminist, preferably in person! :)

The word rape should be reserved for describing sex forced on someone who would never consent to it. To use it in a sense like this, which is at very best a loose definition of the word, is to make light of the suffering of REAL rape victims. Real rape victims do not consent to sex with the rapist, do not follow him around before and after the rape, do not tell everyone what a great time they're having with the rapist after being raped, and do not wait until their feelings are hurt before going to the police, if they go to the police at all.

You don't know much about domestic sexual violence, do you? Possibly about as much as you seem to know about extradition between and from EU countries. The most common incidence of rape is within relationships where many if not all of the characteristic behaviours you mock are likely to occur.

And most important of all, it's clear that one of the main areas where we differ is on just whom we bestow the title of "Legitimate Authority".

Indeed. I consider the Swedish police and the High Court of England as legitimate authorities. Clearly you don't, which is a little odd.

Maybe this is the point where we can agree to disagree.

Yep, you are ignoring all rational argument and factual evidence presented to you so that's probably wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it reasonable for him to suspect that there is an intent on the part of the US to get their hands on him by whatever means possible? Absolutely.

Peter, is it not reasonable to suggest that the US could have requested his extradition from the UK at any time before he decided to break the law in yet another country and jump bail? We are not exactly averse to granting US extradition requests..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the most important basis of your argument and the reason you think there is a 'dodgy case' is based around whether he is more likely to be extradited from Sweden - which he isn't. I'd say to have a strong opinion on this issue you need to a grounding on the facts that affect that opinion. If going to Sweden makes no legal difference, why are you bothered about whether or not he goes to Sweden?
Because he seems to feel that he's more at risk in Sweden. He's the one at risk, so I'm inclined to think he may be right. It's not as though you've provided categorical evidence to show that he isn't, and indeed there may be more to it behind the scenes than just a matter of the extradition law as it is written.

I didn't say that you had biased source (sic).
Did I'm afraid to say.

Speaking as someone who is broadly in favour of Wikileaks I don't think that his work gives him carte blanche to dictate as to which laws he chooses to obey or ignore.
But nobody has said he has the right to ignore any laws.

By the sounds of things he has a charge which he needs to answer to. From what I understand, what he is being accused of, he doesn't seem to be denying.
Really?

That's enough for me to consider his posturing a tad irrelevant particularly when the only reason that he seems to be refusing to go doesn't appear to have any logical legal basis.
I'm not convinced that you more of an idea of the legal basis for things than I do. But given that you are a self-proclaimed qualified supporter of Wikileaks, I really am surprised at how quick you are to take the side of the Swedish, British and US governments in this matter. They want to crucify him. We should be suspicious. Simple, I would have thought.

As an aside, as somebody said earlier in the thread, if the US really wanted to do away with Assange, they'd be far better encouraging him to head off to Ecuador as soon as possible where it'll be far easier to quietly do away with him than subjecting him to a big show-trial.
Once again, he's the one looking at long-term imprisonment in the US and probably torture of various kinds, so I'll let him make the decisions as to what might be in his interests.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I consider the Swedish police and the High Court of England as legitimate authorities. Clearly you don't, which is a little odd.

Their legitimacy ends when they allow outside forces to dictate their course of action, it is not some holy thing which is above human error and vested interest.

Clearly you don't think they ARE allowing outside forces to dictate their course of action. I do. We disagree. Claiming that we disagree because I'm immune to logic is no argument at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I am right in saying the European Human Rights legislation prevents extradition to nations that exercise the death penalty.

No, or else no-one could be extradited to the US.

The restriction is on being extradited from Sweden (and other countries subject to the same limitations) on charges which could attract the death penalty - massive difference.

So if the US want to charge him with offences which could attract the death penalty, and need to extradite him from Sweden, it means they have to find another charge on which to do so, one which isn't subject to the death penalty.

They would also need to avoid things which are political in nature or which may give rise to the "free speech" defence.

It is very likely that the reason this secret grand jury is secret is precisely to prevent him showing that there are charges waiting for him other than whatever charges they will lay in the extradition request, when it comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I consider the Swedish police and the High Court of England as legitimate authorities. Clearly you don't, which is a little odd.

Their legitimacy ends when they allow outside forces to dictate their course of action, it is not some holy thing which is above human error and vested interest.

Clearly you don't think they ARE allowing outside forces to dictate their course of action. I do. We disagree. Claiming that we disagree because I'm immune to logic is no argument at all.

I'm sorry, I thought you were still arguing that the accusations were a "matter of sexual etiquette" and not rape!!

As you have no evidence that the evil US puppet master is orchestrating the actions of the UK or Swedish authorities I'd be interested to know on what basis you hold those views?

On another note, if Mr Assange had acquired and then published a raft of secret information belonging to the UK government then I'd want our people to be all over him like a cheap suit - wherever he fled to. That the Americans may feel the same way is entirely justifiable and to be honest, I hope they do get him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it reasonable for him to suspect that there is an intent on the part of the US to get their hands on him by whatever means possible? Absolutely.

Peter, is it not reasonable to suggest that the US could have requested his extradition from the UK at any time before he decided to break the law in yet another country and jump bail? We are not exactly averse to granting US extradition requests..

Yes it is reasonable to suggest that.

But it would be unreasonable to conclude that the fact that they haven't yet done so means they won't do so. Especially when they have a secret grand jury working away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a world in which governments (and their benefactors) want greater secrecy and more restrictions on our own liberties, then Wikileaks is a force for good and ultimately essential.

This does not excuse Assange for what he may have done.

The difficulty is seperating the two in the minds of the public i.e. how to protect Wikileaks in the event Assange finds himself in a US court.

(Also, rape is rape, and the talk of 'minor' or any form of 'levels' of rape is disgusting, stop it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Also, rape is rape, and the talk of 'minor' or any form of 'levels' of rape is disgusting, stop it.)

rape is rape in the uk

in sweden rape is having sex with a woman who thinks you have a condom on when you don't. it's not necessarily forced sex. one of the assange charges is for just that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a world in which governments (and their benefactors) want greater secrecy and more restrictions on our own liberties, then Wikileaks is a force for good and ultimately essential.

This does not excuse Assange for what he may have done.

The difficulty is seperating the two in the minds of the public i.e. how to protect Wikileaks in the event Assange finds himself in a US court.

(Also, rape is rape, and the talk of 'minor' or any form of 'levels' of rape is disgusting, stop it.)

Yes, rape is rape, and some things are rape and some things are not. We weren't in the bedroom, so we don't know exactly what happened, but we seem to have been pretty quick to decide that Assange is a rapist who deserves what's coming to him, when the evidence that we DO have suggests that he is very much less than a rapist by the British definition, while by the Swedish definition he may or MAY NOT be.

Am I really, honestly, the only person who thinks that there is something wrong when somebody can be happy to be with a partner one minute, and then shop them to the police the next minute without even seeing that person again?

Either you have been raped, in which case you should have nothing further to do with the person, or you haven't. If you text your friends to say how thrilled you are to be with your so-called rapist, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN RAPED.

Can someone explain to me how what I am saying conflicts with the idea that rape is wrong, and rapists should face justice? Please, I beg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Also, rape is rape, and the talk of 'minor' or any form of 'levels' of rape is disgusting, stop it.)

In Swedish law, there are three levels of rape, each carrying different sentences.

When people refer to this case being a "more minor" form of rape they are referring to this distinction, in that if Assange were charged then it would seem he would be charged with the level attracting the least penalty, not necessarily trying to diminish rape - though using the term "minor" is inviting misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â