The Assange/Wikileaks/Manning Thread

[LondonLax]

If that is true CF then the Swedish court will most probably find in his favour and he will be free to go. The majority of rape cases fail to end in a conviction even when the evidence seems quite strong.

[CrackpotForeigner]

If that is true CF then the Swedish court will most probably find in his favour and he will be free to go. The majority of rape cases fail to end in a conviction even when the evidence seems quite strong.

Quite. And it is tragic that so many rape cases do go unpunished.

And nobody has claimed that JA forceably had sex with anyone. All the evidence we have suggests that he's unlikely to be convicted. Which rather supports the argument that it's extradition JA fears, rather than justice.

[peterms]

If that is true CF then the Swedish court will most probably find in his favour and he will be free to go. The majority of rape cases fail to end in a conviction even when the evidence seems quite strong.

Well, I would say it's possible to imagine that someone could have been raped, and also later tweet to say they were thrilled to be with someone, though you can see why such a tweet would give the impression that whatever had happened was consensual.

With regard to that series of tweets, what's attracted a lot of comment is that AA deleted them, which could give the impression of trying to conceal something which would be unhelpful to her case. They were recovered by someone who had received them, I gather.

[GarethRDR]

Just so I can get this straight in my mind; there's a level of legally quantifiable rape in Sweden for lying about what you're doing during sex with a consenting partner (in Assange's case going ninja-bareback)?

I only mention it as I'd like to holiday with the missus to Stockholm next year, but during sex I frequently instruct her to "enjoy my mighty leviathanesque love-spear" and I'd rather not wind up in the slammer just because I've embellished the ferocity of my penis (again).

[CrackpotForeigner]

Just so I can get this straight in my mind; there's a level of legally quantifiable rape in Sweden for lying about what you're doing during sex with a consenting partner (in Assange's case going ninja-bareback)?

I only mention it as I'd like to holiday with the missus to Stockholm next year, but during sex I frequently instruct her to "enjoy my mighty leviathanesque love-spear" and I'd rather not wind up in the slammer just because I've embellished the ferocity of my penis (again).

Bloody rapist.

[Ads]

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?

No I have had a hearing this afternoon.

I wont criticise it until I have seen it, but I am struggling to see how much weight in carries up against a High Court Judgment.

[Ads]

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, ( 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?

I think we essentially agree that there is a case to be answered. I've not seen all the evidence and if I were to hedge my bets, I think he'd be found not guilty in an English Court. I personally think we have a poor record of convictions when it comes to rape, but that's by the by.

I guess the point is that the law has not been altered to shoe horn allegations against Julian Assange.

If anything he would have been more likely to have faced a fairer trial in Sweden. There is no trial by press over there for a start and it has an excellent human rights record.

I think penultimate paragraph is nonsense though. The idea that a government would lean on an independent judicial branch to further the ends of foreign power is ridiculous. Even a man as paranoid as him cannot surely believe such a fantasy, even if the dissemination of such view points is in his favour.

He is not a law unto himself. He should face charges in any country where he has been accused of committing a crime.

[Ads]

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.

What evidence or experience have you got to back this sort of statement up?

I personally have regular dealings with the English judiciary and can categorically state that they are a law unto themselves. The idea that anybody could lean on them is absurd!

Come over a chat to even a DDJ and they will leave you scratching your head as to how they have reached a Judgment. The higher up the food chain you get, the more interested they are in siphoning away power from Parliament.

[Ads]

(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

Rape is penetration without consent or a reasonable belief in consent. Your propagating a myth with that sort of comment. The circumstances of the case would fall into the s.1 of the SOA 2003.

Whether there is enough evidence to successfully prosecute is another matter.

[CrackpotForeigner]

The idea that a government would lean on an independent judicial branch to further the ends of foreign power is ridiculous. Even a man as paranoid as him cannot surely believe such a fantasy, even if the dissemination of such view points is in his favour.

He is not a law unto himself. He should face charges in any country where he has been accused of committing a crime.

There are many of us who think that a government WOULD lean on an independent judicial branch to further their own ends. When the foreign power is the US, the government in question might well seek a result favourable to them. Personally I have absolutely no doubt that that sort of thing happens on a regular basis around the world, but you may be right to question whether this would happen in Sweden.

But as I've said on previous pages, the Swedish trial is the least of JA's problems, and I do believe that if there were no question of extradition to the US, Assange would be in Sweden tomorrow (sure, I may be wrong).

As Peter says, the fact that Sweden has made no effort to guarantee he won't be extradited to the US is reason for him (and us) to be suspicious of the whole thing.

If Assange could be tried fairly in Sweden, and then either do the time or return to wherever it is he'd like to return to, I don't think anyone would object. But he's unwilling to take the chance of ending up in the US, and I don't think you can blame him for that.

[LondonLax]

How could Sweden guarantee Assange would not be extradited to the US?

If compelling evidence came out that he has committed crimes in US jurisdiction it would mean he was immune from prosecution whilst he was staying in Sweden.

No government would agree to that.

[CrackpotForeigner]

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.

What evidence or experience have you got to back this sort of statement up?

I personally have regular dealings with the English judiciary and can categorically state that they are a law unto themselves. The idea that anybody could lean on them is absurd!

I like to think that you're right about them being above influence (although being a law unto themselves doesn't sound like a recommendation ). I'm just very sceptical about the case against him (as you may gather), and I can't get away from the idea (as you may gather) that the prosecution has come about because of who he is, rather than what he's done.

Clearly not everyone agrees with me on that, but considering the good work he's done it would be disgraceful if he were to end up in the US having proven his innocence of the Swedish charges, and that is the risk.

[CrackpotForeigner]

How could Sweden guarantee Assange would not be extradited to the US?

If compelling evidence came out that he has committed crimes in US jurisdiction it would mean he was immune from prosecution whilst he was staying in Sweden.

No government would agree to that.

Maybe not, but nobody who had any choice would agree to be tried for one thing and then subsequently taken away by his enemies to be tried for something else.

Edit: You would think that if Sweden were only interested in giving him a fair trial for what he's accused of in Sweden, they might find a way to provide whatever guarantees he needed, especially since at this stage the US haven't charged him with anything.

[AVFCforever1991]

How could Sweden guarantee Assange would not be extradited to the US?

That effectively says that they are going to extradite him.

[LondonLax]

How could Sweden guarantee Assange would not be extradited to the US?

That effectively says that they are going to extradite him.

No it doesn't. There is not even an extradition request on the table yet.

I just don't see how they could say he is immune from being extradited. Sweden will have extradition treaties with countries all over the world. They can't just pick and choose when to apply them. The treaty would break down if they did.

And what if the Swedish government was being tricked by Assange when he was actually guilty of a crime in the US? They would look pretty foolish if evidence came out and they couldn't send him to face those charges.

[CrackpotForeigner]

what if the Swedish government was being tricked by Assange when he was actually guilty of a crime in the US? They would look pretty foolish if evidence came out and they couldn't send him to face those charges.

I have no doubt at all that the US are quite capable of coming up with a crime of which he can be found guilty. Amazed that you don't seem to. He has pissed their government off. Guantanamo Bay is full of people who are considered to have pissed the US govt off, and they have not been afforded what we would call a fair trial.

I don't see how Sweden would look foolish if they were to stick to some sort of guarantee in order to get what they claim to want: Assange tried for this wierd sexy thing.

[LondonLax]

what if the Swedish government was being tricked by Assange when he was actually guilty of a crime in the US? They would look pretty foolish if evidence came out and they couldn't send him to face those charges.

I have no doubt at all that the US are quite capable of coming up with a crime of which he can be found guilty. Amazed that you don't seem to. He has pissed their government off. Guantanamo Bay is full of people who are considered to have pissed the US govt off, and they have not been afforded what we would call a fair trial.

I don't see how Sweden would look foolish if they were to stick to some sort of guarantee in order to get what they claim to want: Assange tried for this wierd sexy thing.

Well why have an extradition treaty at all if you are going to pick and choose when to apply it?

[CrackpotForeigner]

Why have an extradition treaty at all if you are going to pick and choose when to apply it?

I'd say picking and choosing when to apply it could be said to be the fairest, most sensible way to implement an extradition treaty, unless you have complete confidence in the unfailing fairness of the corresponding government (which you may gather I don't).

[peterms]

Guantanamo Bay is full of people who are considered to have pissed the US govt off, and they have not been afforded what we would call a fair trial.

As former Gitmo guard Brandon Neely pointed out Monday, more detainees have died at the camp (nine) than have been convicted of wrongdoing by its military commissions (six).

Here.

A policy of unlawful seizure, torture, detention until death without trial.

It's like the Middle Ages.

[peterms]

I just don't see how they could say he is immune from being extradited. Sweden will have extradition treaties with countries all over the world. They can't just pick and choose when to apply them. The treaty would break down if they did.

The Swedish courts can decide whether to allow someone to be extradited. They cannot compel extradition.

The Swedish Government can decide whether to allow someone to be extradited. They cannot compel it.

The government has decided to enter into a treaty which more or less says that if the courts find extradition is acceptable, they will let it proceed. This is a political decision. They can decide, like any other state at any time, that extradition is not warranted, no matter what the courts say.

This is what we did with the vile Pinochet, who had women raped by dogs because he disapproved of their political views. We decided not to extradite, regardless that he was facing war crimes charges.

The idea that Sweden cannot prevent extradition, cannot issue a guarantee to Assange, is a piece of fiction, spread by sources in Sweden and by people here like the lawyerly David Allen Green. It's bollocks.

It would however be prudent for them to ask the US if there are any issues for which they are contemplating an extradition request, so they don't give immunity to extradition not knowing what serious crimes the man may have committed in the US. Having done that, it would be possible, practicable, and sensible, to give an undertaking that they will under no circumstances extradite Assange while he is within their jurisidiction. In view of their recent history, they may also want to add that they will not be complicit in his kidnapping, rendition, or assassination, just to set his mind at rest.

If they actually want to interview him, and are not prepared to take the simple step of coming here to do that, then this would be a way of removing a current obstacle.

But I guess we all know that.