Julian Assange

[6538]

I wouldn't waste your breath. Some people must always take an alternative stance to everything, even in as simple a situation as this. It makes them feel all clever and stuff. Sometimes people are even paid to inhabit forums like this in an attempt to sway public opinion. See Julia Hobshawm - Editorial intelligence.

The situation is simple.

Man might have 'truths' which reveal governments are bad people > governments canot allow this > governments attack the man in smear campaign using disgusting abuse of their power.

It reminds me of IT geeks who slate everything microsoft do;

1) If their products are as shit as you say, why does the world practically run on them?

2) If you'd like to put your ideas into a better product, ******ing well do it and shut up.

I'm not taking an alternate view simply because I can, nor am I paid to do so - I bloody wish I was as that would be such an easy life!

I just think that people seem to be being swayed too much by what crap in the media over this. It's just so much tin-foil hattery when you actually take a rational look at it.

As for what you say these revelations from Wikileaks say about governments - sorry but it doesn't really say much at all. It just says that diplomats very often say things a bit embarrassing from time to time; it tells us things like China is a tad hacked-off with NK - so?; it tells us that Prince Andrew thinks the French are a touch objectionable - who doesn't?; etc, etc. Absolutely nothing top secret or deeply illegal has come out. We haven't seen a list of people the CIA has had assasinated; we haven't seen something that shows the T Blair Esq had Doctor Kelly murdered or somoene pushed off a hill; we haven't seen top secret plans for the next generation of mega-weapons come out. It's all just been so much tabloid crap that no one really cares about.

[libspero]

It all depends on what you consider serious though. Given that we don't even know what the specific offence is (a verbatim traslation of the Swedish law he alleged to have contravened would help) we can't really say how serious it is in reality. We have had mentioned everything from rape downwards at one time or another. The current suggestion seems to be relating to some offence whereby a woman is allowed to change her mind after the event which, to honest, I'm not buying. As I say, this is a modern western European democracy with a very high standard of living we are talking about - not some backward sh1t hole that's ruled by radical religionists.

Here you go 6538.. I'll throw you a bone..

The country has the highest reporting rate in the European Union. (Perhaps because "Swedish women, backed by a strong consciousness of women's rights and a history of a very public discussion of the scourge of sexual violence, may be more willing than most to look to the law for help," writes the Times' Katrin Bennhold.) Swedish law also recognizes "withdrawal of consent" as rape, which is what is alleged in the Assange case, and details three types of rape: "severe," "regular" and "less severe."

Linky

Here's a bit more for you..

The allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are pretty straightforward in terms of Swedish law: he's been accused of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

The charges allege that Assange held one woman down using his body weight to sexually assault her and that he raped another woman while she was sleeping.

Linky

[okaycuckoo]

Assange gave an interview today, stating that most of the attacks against Wikileaks had come from the banks. None of the journalists asked him to elaborate.

[6538]

Listen bud. It allegedly all happened in August. Then, 4 months later, his site release some pretty damning reports on the internet, and whaddyayouknow - 2 days after, all this guff hits the media. The extradition requests - with govts all over the place shouting for his head.

It isn't even subtle anymore. After Iraq, everyone who questions any govt is seen as a threat. I expect he'll be in a car crash pretty soon, to be honest.

Nothing more to see here. Please move on.

PS. I hope your assigned a better task than posting here, next week. Maybe traffic control....

You can always tell when the opposition is running out of argument becuse they start to undermine the opponent by associating with whomver the see as the enemy.

[6538]

Here you go 6538.. I'll throw you a bone..

Linky

Here's a bit more for you..

Linky

Right, so we're actually going round in circles here. First I say he's accused of serious sexual offences (rape, etc) then people berate me and say, "No, no, it's just some trivial, technical offence which carries a hundred quid fine", and then we are back to very serious offences of forcibly having sex (rape again) with two women - one of whom was asleep at the time!!

As to the "withdrawl of consent" offence, how is this actually defined in Swedish law? People are suggesting that it allows a woman to withdraw consent at some point after the act, which I simply do not believe. However, it more probably means that she can give consent and then withdraw it while the sex is taking place. Which, surpirse , surprise (not) is exactly what the law is here and if the bloke doesn't stop then he's guilty of rape.

To ask again; does anyone hav a link to a translation of the actual pont of Swedish law that he is alleged to have contravened, or even the original Swedish text of it?

[6538]

We don't know what the facts were specifically and what she knew or when. Perhaps it's the case she just didn't report it until two days later, I don't know. No one has yet actually managed to produce a verbatim section of the particular Swedish statute he is alleged to have contravened so we don't know what the actual alleged offence is. It is all just speculation.

What we do know though, is that someone who is wanted in another EU state (not Iran or somewhere equally dodgy) is wanted in relation to sex crimes yet loads of the world's celebs and the wealthy are running to his aid for apparently no more reason that they think he's some sort of warrior for freedom of speech because he's embarassed the yanks over an unpopular war.

You can see where it's going. The next objection his legal team will make to his extradition is that he cannot have a fair trial due to the publicity. Publicity which they are largely responsible for whipping up.

And, lo and behold and as if by magic this is precisely what he's said today according to channel 4 news!

I also note that he, and you have to laugh here, is whining claiming that the Swedish prosecutor has selectively LEAKED certain parts of his prosecution file - isn't that what is generally referred to as irony, or perhaps poetic justice depending upon ones particualar view point.

[libspero]

Right, so we're actually going round in circles here. First I say he's accused of serious sexual offences (rape, etc) then people berate me and say, "No, no, it's just some trivial, technical offence which carries a hundred quid fine", and then we are back to very serious offences of forcibly having sex (rape again) with two women - one of whom was asleep at the time!!

As to the "withdrawl of consent" offence, how is this actually defined in Swedish law? People are suggesting that it allows a woman to withdraw consent at some point after the act, which I simply do not believe. However, it more probably means that she can give consent and then withdraw it while the sex is taking place. Which, surpirse , surprise (not) is exactly what the law is here and if the bloke doesn't stop then he's guilty of rape.

To ask again; does anyone hav a link to a translation of the actual pont of Swedish law that he is alleged to have contravened, or even the original Swedish text of it?

I thought I'd add a little weight to your argument since we're all ganging up on you

I still don't believe for one second that the allegations are based in fact (and even if they are will be nigh on impossible to prove). Would an English court really take the word of one girl against one guy.. when she bragged about what she did on twitter, organised him a party the next day then two months later decides she was raped?

I think I'll stick by my original assertion that she sounds like a head case.. but as you say, it would be interesting to see the actual charges and how the case stands up once he gets to Sweden.

[South Lorne]

You can always tell when the opposition is running out of argument becuse they start to undermine the opponent by associating with whomver the see as the enemy.

....like Assange linking his main attackers as Banks.....

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

Listen bud. It allegedly all happened in August. Then, 4 months later, his site release some pretty damning reports on the internet, and whaddyayouknow - 2 days after, all this guff hits the media. The extradition requests - with govts all over the place shouting for his head.

It isn't even subtle anymore. After Iraq, everyone who questions any govt is seen as a threat. I expect he'll be in a car crash pretty soon, to be honest.

Nothing more to see here. Please move on.

PS. I hope your assigned a better task than posting here, next week. Maybe traffic control....

Indeed. Fishier still is the fact that Sweden has some rather wide rape definitions. I think Assange is a bit embarrassed that he walked into a honey-trap sting, so he's not being vocal on the obvious stitch-up. He avoids talking in conspiratorial terms.

[6538]

I thought I'd add a little weight to your argument since we're all ganging up on you

I still don't believe for one second that the allegations are based in fact (and even if they are will be nigh on impossible to prove). Would an English court really take the word of one girl against one guy.. when she bragged about what she did on twitter, organised him a party the next day then two months later decides she was raped?

I think I'll stick by my original assertion that she sounds like a head case.. but as you say, it would be interesting to see the actual charges and how the case stands up once he gets to Sweden.

She may well be a total nutter and, as has been pointed out on another thread - women commonly are utter nut jobs. However, we just don't know. Also, there are two involed so that makes it look a touch worse.

We don't really know what she did or said or what happened. This is all just so much rumour, as far as I can tell.

Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that because this came two days after he eleased his latest load of pointless sh1t that it's a fit-up and are basing that on nothing other than coincidence. Perhaps it actually just a genuine coincidence or, maybe, Assange is using his public image and popularity in order to go about committin crimes? I don't know, no one knows, but I don't think it's reasonable to state something as a fact simply because it coincidentally appears to be related to a matter of current public interest. No one is keeping an open mind about it all.

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

She may well be a total nutter and, as has been pointed out on another thread - women commonly are utter nut jobs. However, we just don't know. Also, there are two involed so that makes it look a touch worse.

We don't really know what she did or said or what happened. This is all just so much rumour, as far as I can tell.

Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that because this came two days after he eleased his latest load of pointless sh1t that it's a fit-up and are basing that on nothing other than coincidence. Perhaps it actually just a genuine coincidence or, maybe, Assange is using his public image and popularity in order to go about committin crimes? I don't know, no one knows, but I don't think it's reasonable to state something as a fact simply because it coincidentally appears to be related to a matter of current public interest. No one is keeping an open mind about it all.

I agree that many of the leaks are the pointless tittle-tattle of diplomatic life but they do give an insight into the machinations of geo-politics. We know that Andrew is a buffoon and an oaf - how is that helping 'British trade'? We know that Saudis are among the voices urging the US (and by default us) to attack Iran. We know senior diplomats think Hamid Karzai isn't fit to govern yet we're getting young lads killed to prop up his government. We know about Chinese missile sales and rendition controversies. I can't see anything leaked so far that isn't useful for informed citizens around the world to know.

Assange is basically right that the more open and transparent governments are, the less they can screw with us. It's practically a truism.

[MrPin]

Who is Julia Arsehanger, and do you have any of her films?

[Number79]

I think I stopped using the word "serious" a while back.

It all depends on what you consider serious though. Given that we don't even know what the specific offence is (a verbatim traslation of the Swedish law he alleged to have contravened would help) we can't really say how serious it is in reality. We have had mentioned everything from rape downwards at one time or another. The current suggestion seems to be relating to some offence whereby a woman is allowed to change her mind after the event which, to honest, I'm not buying. As I say, this is a modern western European democracy with a very high standard of living we are talking about - not some backward sh1t hole that's ruled by radical religionists.

The point I'm making is that the "great and the good" (and I use that phrase with strong reservations) seem to be automatically jumpting to the assumption that Assange needs to be protected because this entire event has been concocted by the yanks and supporterd by Sweden simply because he's p1ssed them off a tad and that any questioning of that shouldn't be entertained. Regrdless of how "serious" you consider these offences to be, they are still offences and sexual ones at that.

I suppose that about the only thing which may not seem quite right is, given that he is apparently just wanted for questioning then why can't the Swedish cops just send a bloke over to question him here - they could send that nice Wallander chap and his pretty female side kick over to do it.

The details have been reported. The reason that people are supporting Assange is because the situation is blatant.

Even if there was nothing obviously wrong here should he not be presumed innocent until proven otherwise? Is that not how the law works in civilised society? Allegations are exactly that.

[6538]

The details have been reported. The reason that people are supporting Assange is because the situation is blatant.

Even if there was nothing obviously wrong here should he not be presumed innocent until proven otherwise? Is that not how the law works in civilised society? Allegations are exactly that.

Is the situation "blatant"?. In what way? You need evidence to substantiate such an allegation and at present we have none other than coincidence.

He is presumed innconent as he has been given bail. His bail was granted according to the law of this Country and I see no evidence that he has been treated any differently to any other Austrailian citizen who's extradition has been sought by another EU state.

[hirop]

I just think that people seem to be being swayed too much by what crap in the media over this. It's just so much tin-foil hattery when you actually take a rational look at it.

ok special agent 6538, lets slow down here. The reason for people on here, and throughout the world, being behind Assange is not because of some carefully crafted media coverage in his favour. From what I have seen, mostly in the free-press his name is followed in close proximety by words\phrases like "rape" and "serious sexual offences" - i'd say that is the exact oppositie of what you propose, it is words and reportage designed, and implemented, to dehumanise Assange and turn him into some kind of pantomine villian with a hard-on. It is this very clear and obvious smearing of his character, perfectly timed after his latest serious of leaks that is making people see through the thin veneer of horseshit being slung. As another poster said, THEY are not even being subtle about it.

There is no need to extradite someone for 'questioning' when they have made themselves available for questioning in the international interview suite in Scotland Yard. You wouldn't even know it was questioning he was wanted on and not actual charges of actual offenses unless his lawyers were labouring the point time and again in media appearances. Ask yourself, is this taking a hammer to crack a walnut, is it really necessary to lock this guy up just to ask him some questions? Why is that? Is he really a flight risk? Maybe if he was a swedish citizan I could see the whole extradition thing, but for crimes that are now being reported as likely to carry no custodial sentance it seems a bit, eh, dramatic. Why is that?

This has nothing to do with Sweden and everything to do with getting him to the US. Each legal barrier, each and every legal hoop he has to jump through is about getting this guy to the US, its the long-game - clearly. Think about that for a second, he is essentially a trouble-making (if you like) freelance web publisher, and he is heading for an orange jumpsuit and a cell with bubba. The precedent being set is disgusting.

The most important question is how th heck did you get 4000+ posts in your special agent role, is it a conicidental cross-over and you do actually want a hpc as well?

[newbonic]

ok special agent 6538, lets slow down here. The reason for people on here, and throughout the world, being behind Assange is not because of some carefully crafted media coverage in his favour. From what I have seen, mostly in the free-press his name is followed in close proximety by words\phrases like "rape" and "serious sexual offences" - i'd say that is the exact oppositie of what you propose, it is words and reportage designed, and implemented, to dehumanise Assange and turn him into some kind of pantomine villian with a hard-on. It is this very clear and obvious smearing of his character, perfectly timed after his latest serious of leaks that is making people see through the thin veneer of horseshit being slung. As another poster said, THEY are not even being subtle about it.

.......

On the whole I'd agree with that assessment - the media coverage has veered strongly towards the 'smear' end of the spectrum. Or at the very least, lazy uncritical journalism that just repeats whatever's said elsewhere without checking the facts.

It's occurred to me that, apart from anything else, some print and TV journos must be green with envy that some hick with a website has trumped them for major scoops, many many times.

[Leroast]

Nearly 3 in 4 google search results for rape also refer to Assange. Thats a pretty effective smear campaign.

rape: About 42,200,000 results

rape assange: About 30,200,000 results

[6538]

ok special agent 6538, lets slow down here. The reason for people on here, and throughout the world, being behind Assange is not because of some carefully crafted media coverage in his favour. From what I have seen, mostly in the free-press his name is followed in close proximety by words\phrases like "rape" and "serious sexual offences" - i'd say that is the exact oppositie of what you propose, it is words and reportage designed, and implemented, to dehumanise Assange and turn him into some kind of pantomine villian with a hard-on. It is this very clear and obvious smearing of his character, perfectly timed after his latest serious of leaks that is making people see through the thin veneer of horseshit being slung. As another poster said, THEY are not even being subtle about it.

In your opinion. It is only your opinion though and, from what I have seen, an opinion which appears to start out from a position of nothing other than coincidence of events. Do you have actual evidence to end up at the conclusion that what is being said about him is designd and implimented to dehumaise him and that is just an attempt to smear his character or is a case of you simply believing what you want to believe or because it's just too easy to follow the crowd?

I could suggest the other way. This whole thing started off with allegations relating to rape - a serious sexual offence in anyone's book. It was then apparently suggested that it was only something relating to a very minor matter involving a potential small fine and stories were provided starting that it was some obscure piece of Swedish law which allowed a womon to retract consent after the event which, is just ludicrous, quite frankly. The latest we have is back to rape and a graphic description of how he alegedly held a woman down, raped her whilst asleep or both. I can draw the conclusion that the middle story was concocted in order to make him out as the wronged man just as easily as you can conclude that he's being fitted up. We are both doing so as a result of simple coincidence and have no actual evidence to back it up so my opinion is just as valid as yours.

There is no need to extradite someone for 'questioning' when they have made themselves available for questioning in the international interview suite in Scotland Yard. You wouldn't even know it was questioning he was wanted on and not actual charges of actual offenses unless his lawyers were labouring the point time and again in media appearances. Ask yourself, is this taking a hammer to crack a walnut, is it really necessary to lock this guy up just to ask him some questions? Why is that? Is he really a flight risk? Maybe if he was a swedish citizan I could see the whole extradition thing, but for crimes that are now being reported as likely to carry no custodial sentance it seems a bit, eh, dramatic. Why is that?

Yes, I have pointed out that this does seem somewhat strange. However, we simply do not know the precise facts.

Also, again, you are saying that his extradtion is in relation to crimes which carry no custodial sentence. Is this right as if it's actually rape he is wanted for from the graphic description which was given above then that certainly dos carry a potentiall very long custodial sentence.

This has nothing to do with Sweden and everything to do with getting him to the US

.

In your opinion. An opinion which is based on absolutely nothing other than coincidence, it would apear.

Each legal barrier, each and every legal hoop he has to jump through is about getting this guy to the US,

See above.

its the long-game - clearly. Think about that for a second, he is essentially a trouble-making (if you like) freelance web publisher, and he is heading for an orange jumpsuit and a cell with bubba. The precedent being set is disgusting.

Se above.

The most important question is how th heck did you get 4000+ posts in your special agent role, is it a conicidental cross-over and you do actually want a hpc as well?

The most important thing in this argument is my post count - I'm flattered that you think me so significant. I see you are yet another person who, deep down, has little faith in his own argument so feels the need to disparage his oponents position.

[6538]

On the whole I'd agree with that assessment - the media coverage has veered strongly towards the 'smear' end of the spectrum. Or at the very least, lazy uncritical journalism that just repeats whatever's said elsewhere without checking the facts.

It's occurred to me that, apart from anything else, some print and TV journos must be green with envy that some hick with a website has trumped them for major scoops, many many times.

I agree. I mean, how many times hav you heard them ask, "Are you guilty, Mr Assange?". That would appear to be the most pressing question which no one as asking.

[6538]

Apparently the specific things where are being investigated are;

" 1) That Assange "unlawfully coerced" 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."

So, a rational assesment of them would be;

1) Assault, battery, sexual assault. (As I said pages ago "unlawful coercion" is clearly just legal speak or is something which has gota bit lost intranslation)

2) Rape.

3) Sexual assault, possibly rape

4) Rape.

No shit about condoms breaking, ludicrous rubbish about women withdrawing consent after the event or anything about "sexual surprise" or whatever ridiculous phrase was used.

Those are the actual things the Swedishg extradition application talks about. These are facts.

So, I think that once and for all, we can now all agree that he is wanted in relation to serious sexual offences which carry custodial sentenes, not just a trivially small fine.

[copydude]

Nearly 3 in 4 google search results for rape also refer to Assange. Thats a pretty effective smear campaign.

rape: About 42,200,000 results

rape assange: About 30,200,000 results

It isn't a smear campaign. The object of the exercise was to have Assange jailed on a 'holding charge' while America could frame a new law or case with which they could lock him up permanently. The rape charge is a red herring. Assange was not kept in solitary for a crime that carries no jail term. Swedish prosecutors were not even required to provide any evidence substantiating the warrant. Not one piece of paper.

The important point is this. Swedish prosecutors have already intimated that they would 'defer' to the US if Assange found himself in Sweden. The CPS (Theresa May) has already deferred to the US in appealing bail.There is not an international manhunt because someone may or may not have used a condom.

There never will be a 'rape case' in Sweden. Ever. If it were that simple, it stands to reason that Assange would be there to-morrow, pay the fine (in the highly unlikely event of a successful prosecution against two nobbled witnesses) and carry on walking free, plus passport, without a police escort or being strapped to an electronic tag. Not even in Sweden does this happen to people who don't use a condom. The country would become a bigger laughing stock than America and another reason why the Swedes would be only too delighted to put him on one of those 'extraordinary rendition' planes ASAP.

Some argue that Wikileaks disclosures are harmless. Or at least fall into the category, 'hey, we knew that anyway.' The majority of Americans do not share this view. Releasing film of Apache crews blowing away Reuters journalists, for example, accompanied by whoops of delight, tends to make Americans look bad. For this they will never forgive Assange. Someone has to pay for exposing US hypocrisy.

In passing, shall we note that US Torture dominatrix, Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib, served just 521 days, none of them in solitary. For exposing similar excesses. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are looking at something fairly terminal.

[Habeas Domus]

The rape charges are (as Naomi Wolf points out) almost certaintly just a smokescreen for the US to try and nab this guy on any charge they can make stick, or at least bully him enough that he leaves the US alone.

What everyone seems to be missing is that Wikileaks have never 'leaked' anything, all they do is distribute the information like a giant unedited newspaper.

If wikileaks disappeared tomorrow does anyone think information leaks will suddently stop?

What the US Army should be asking themselves is who really leaked that data and why. The fact they are more interested in shooting the messenger boy and prolonging the publicity this whole thing gets, has me wondering if the leak was deliberate.

Its either that or the US govt' just still doesnt 'get' how the internet works yet.

[Tankus]

Apparently the specific things where are being investigated are;

" 1) That Assange "unlawfully coerced" 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."

So, a rational assesment of them would be;

1) Assault, battery, sexual assault. (As I said pages ago "unlawful coercion" is clearly just legal speak or is something which has gota bit lost intranslation)

2) Rape.

3) Sexual assault, possibly rape

4) Rape.

No shit about condoms breaking, ludicrous rubbish about women withdrawing consent after the event or anything about "sexual surprise" or whatever ridiculous phrase was used.

Those are the actual things the Swedishg extradition application talks about. These are facts.

So, I think that once and for all, we can now all agree that he is wanted in relation to serious sexual offences which carry custodial sentenes, not just a trivially small fine.

Apparently Assanges legal team have not been given any formal evidence .......must be nice to be on the inside

What is your motive to continually bring up the word ...rape ?

[copydude]

What everyone seems to be missing is that Wikileaks have never 'leaked' anything, all they do is distribute the information like a giant unedited newspaper.

If wikileaks disappeared tomorrow does anyone think information leaks will suddently stop?

Good post. You are at the heart of the problem.

The US dilemma, at this time, is indeed how to prosecute Assange and others without effectively making any kind of investigative journalism a crime. How do you frame a law against Assange - even one of receiving stolen goods - without implicating the enitre press who have published Wikileaks, especially the New York Times or the Guardian???

That's exactly why they want Assange locked up until they kinda think o' sumpin'.

On your second point, 'do they think leaks will suddenly stop' . . . no they don't. That's why donations are being impeded and Facebook/Twitter records and IP numbers are being monitored ever more closely. Anyone posting to this forum considered in support of Assange is probably already in a CIA database.

[Tankus]

they have been here since april 2008 ...in preparation