George Galloway is certainly being disgusting on the subject of the rape allegations against Assange.
In a thirty minute podcast, the controversial anti-war MP said it was “an extraordinary coincidence that public enemy number one, Julian Assange, somehow gets inveigled with two women with incredibly complex political backgrounds who just, at the right time, come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against him”.
Bitchez be lyin.
“But even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don’t constitute rape.
“At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this.”
The Bradford West MP suggested one of the women had claimed she invited Mr Assange back to her flat, had consensual sex with him and then “woke up to him having sex with her again – something which can happen, you know”.
On the issue of whether this would constitute rape or not, Mr Galloway suggested that “not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion”.
Well, people who don’t need to be asked before each insertion are free to stipulate that to their partners. “Don’t mind me, honey, if I’m asleep or passed out just go ahead, what’s mine is yours.” But people who haven’t made such an arrangement? They still need to be asked prior to each insertion. It’s not optional. It’s not Galloway’s role to say that it is.
Excuse me while I fucking puke.
People who are conscious have the option to say “no”. Since an unconscious or fast asleep person lacks this ability, then an assumption of tacit consent for a second round is ridiculous.
The next person who even hints that rape culture is not a thing. . . I cannot be held accountable for what I might do.
And just contemplate how unthinkable it would be if it were reversed. . . . if a man woke up with a woman penetrating his ass.
Galloway continues to be a pig.
Yes, because if a woman says “yes” to sex with you once, you don’t ever, ever, ever have to wait for a “yes” again.
**hulksmash**
Is today International Rape Apologism Day or something? WTF?
If you give it up once, you are in a perpetual state of consent. That’s why a woman’s sexual history is brought up in rape trials. But if a pedophile has prior history committing the same crime over and over, it’s prejudicial to bring it up.
I wish I were joking when I say this, but I’m dead serious: It’s only a matter of days before the MRAs actually and literally seize on this and claim “radical feminists” require specific permission before each individual thrust during sex.
I don’t think politically motivated prosecution and the possibility that Assange is a date rapist are mutually exclusive. It certainly seems plausible that while the inquiry may be legitimate, that it is being prosecuted not only on the merits but also with ulterior motives on the part of the US.
I was surprised by this “The most serious kind, involving major violence, carries a sentence of ten years.” Seems light for the “most serious kind” of rape, especially in the femistasi gulag of Sweden. (/sarcasm) (My jurisdiction if I read it right is 20 years for aggravated sexual assault.)
The bit that kills me is that whilst he thinks it’s not rape he allows that it might, MIGHT, be bad manners:
Clearly it goes without saying that women are passive vessels in this whole sex business. So what, I wonder, is Galloway etiquette when a woman says, “Well, yes, actually I do mind.”
A lot of people think the charges are bullshit…
Bitchez be lyin’, but they be lyin’ because they be paid up by governments that want Assange silenced and Wikileaks taken down.
At least, that’s the conspiracy.
And as we all know, false accusations of rape happen all the time…
…
…
…
2% qualifies as “all the time”… right?
(So… I really have to point this out, but since intent is impossible to figure out with text, and we don’t have emoticons here, I’ll go ahead and point it out:
I’m being snarky. I do not actually buy any of that bullshit conspiracy theory crap. Yes, I’m a huge fan of Wikileaks, and yes, I was a big fan of Julian Assange when it first came out.
But if the man is rapist, I don’t care if he’s the goddamn Batman. Arrest his ass and throw away the key.
I will say, however, that I’d rather Wikileaks not be part of the trial at all. This is about him possibly raping two women. Wikileaks should not be illegal anywhere. Rape is illegal in most first-world countries and should be illegal everywhere. The trial should cover the actual crime of rape, and that’s it.)
(And I left out a word… “I really have to point this out” should say “I really shouldn’t have to point this out”.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go get all OCD and have a fit over us not being able to edit our comments…)
Right, because when inventing spurious rape accusations, the best thing to do is to invent an accusation of something that a lot of people will dispute is really rape.
^This.
Conspiracy theorists are not usually intelligent. They certainly wouldn’t have thought that far…
This is off-topic, but it appears that Dennis Markuze has decided to grace you with his presence, Ophelia.
I think sleep sex might be OK in a relationship where you’ve talked about it ahead of time and contraception issues are either already worked out or agreed upon ahead of time, and there’s always an understanding that some mornings just might not be the right mornings and all communications about that will be clearly understood. But wait, that turns sleepy sex into clear-cut consent sex.
Assange seems to have done some bad shit. The current standoff makes him a hero. I do not consider him a hero. But at least he has contacted Swedish authorities to try to deal with the situation in Sweden. If he could be sure he would be safe in Sweden and face trial there and either be acquitted or serve time there followed by political asylum there or elsewhere, Assange could be a positive example. Though I’d want him produce some anti-rape culture vids before I’d call him a hero.
The Assange issue is, unfortunately, even more complicated.
Assange stayed in Sweden for about a month after the women went to teh police and the police starged investigating (thw women originally wnet to the police to see if they could force Assange to have an STD test, it was the police who brought up the idea that he might be charged with offences). He submitted himself for several interviews. Despite the fact that every time he was interviewed, the transcript mysteriously appeared in the next day’s local newspaper, he co-operated with the police on several occassions.
The police did not charge him but said the investigation was ongoing. He has still, to this day, NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY OFFENCE.
He asked if he could leave Sweden. The prosecutors said yes he could. So he left.
The Swedish prosecutor changed her mind and asked him to come back for questioning. He said he would answer questions by phone, videolink or in person in England but he would not return unless he was charged.
The Swedish government then issued a RED NOTICE. A red notice is a pre-emptory European arrest warrant for exceptional circumstances. It overrrides many of the usual procedural safeguards. It is usually reserved for dangerous criminals – terrorists, mafia members, war criminals. It is worth noting that duirng the Libyan uprising Gadaffi was the subject of only a YELLOW NOTICE.
Note, despite the RED NOTICE the Swedes haven’t yet charged him with anything, the notice is just to force him to come to Sweden to answer questions.
Assange says he will answer any questions by phone, videolink or in person at the Swedish embassy in London. He won’t go to Sweden voluntarily unless charged. If he were charged, he could be the subject of ordinary extradition proceedings – but safeguards apply there that do not in the case of a red notice.
In Virginia, a grand jury is sitting in a matter related to the prosecution of Bradley Manning. Subpoenas have been issued by teh grand jury to several people seeking evidence regarding Assange.
Sweden has a ratehr disturbing recent history of extrajudicially rendering people (even its own citizens) to the USA in terrorist matters.
Something smells *very* fishy here.
Right, because when inventing spurious rape accusations, the best thing to do is to invent an accusation of something that a lot of people will dispute is really rape.
I seriously doubt there’s much in the way of rape that a depressingly large number of people WON’T dispute is “really” rape. Witness a certain Missouri Congressman.
I should also say that what Assange is accused of is rape in most jurisdictions and, even where it isn’t, tends to fall within a lesser offence like “sexual molestation”. And in any jurisdiction its sleazy, unacceptably immoral conduct.
But Assange *has* denied the claims – and he has not even been charged with anything yet.
Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that at least one of the women (Ms B the younger one) hasn’t actually made a complaint against him and was quite upset when the police started treating the matter as a criminal offence – she had just gone to the police to see if she could force him to get an STD test. On the other hand, the other woman (Ms A, the one he was staying with) apparently *is* claiming rape. But there are some real problems with her story – such as a series of tweets and text to friends after the alleged rapes was supposed to have occurred in which Ms A writes of how much she is enjoying having Assange stay with her, organises a party for him, gossips about his sexual appetite (and complains about his lack of personal hygiene), etc. It *seems* that it was not until Ms A found out about Ms B that she made a complaint. Now, while that is far from determinative (especially given the nature of the allegations here), it sure makes the prosecution case weaker than it would be otherwise. In fact, that weakness may well be why he still hasn’t been charged with anything – it could be that they want to question him because the only way they can put together a reasonable case is if he admits to certain things (like penetration while the woman was asleep, or taking off the condom without telling her – both of which would be bad behaviour and probably criminal, I hasten to add).
But that is all really beside the real point, which is that Assange is yet to be charged with anything, Sweden has used an extraordinary anti-terrorist measure to get him back to Sweden, the US is currently conducting a grand jury against Assange on charges of espionage and Sweden has a rather sleazy history of rendering people to the USA.
Re post from the previous thread:
The Assange issue is, unfortunately, even more complicated.
Assange stayed in Sweden for about a month after the women went to teh police and the police starged investigating (thw women originally wnet to the police to see if they could force Assange to have an STD test, it was the police who brought up the idea that he might be charged with offences). He submitted himself for several interviews. Despite the fact that every time he was interviewed, the transcript mysteriously appeared in the next day’s local newspaper, he co-operated with the police on several occassions.
The police did not charge him but said the investigation was ongoing. He has still, to this day, NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY OFFENCE.
He asked if he could leave Sweden. The prosecutors said yes he could. So he left.
The Swedish prosecutor changed her mind and asked him to come back for questioning. He said he would answer questions by phone, videolink or in person in England but he would not return unless he was charged.
The Swedish government then issued a RED NOTICE. A red notice is a pre-emptory European arrest warrant for exceptional circumstances. It overrrides many of the usual procedural safeguards. It is usually reserved for dangerous criminals – terrorists, mafia members, war criminals. It is worth noting that duirng the Libyan uprising Gadaffi was the subject of only a YELLOW NOTICE.
Note, despite the RED NOTICE the Swedes haven’t yet charged him with anything, the notice is just to force him to come to Sweden to answer questions.
Assange says he will answer any questions by phone, videolink or in person at the Swedish embassy in London. He won’t go to Sweden voluntarily unless charged. If he were charged, he could be the subject of ordinary extradition proceedings – but safeguards apply there that do not in the case of a red notice.
In Virginia, a grand jury is sitting in a matter related to the prosecution of Bradley Manning. Subpoenas have been issued by teh grand jury to several people seeking evidence regarding Assange.
Sweden has a rather disturbing recent history of extrajudicially rendering people (even its own citizens) to the USA in terrorist matters.
Something smells *very* fishy here.
I should also say that what Assange is accused of *is* rape in most jurisdictions and, even where it isn’t, it tends to fall within a lesser offence like “sexual molestation”. And in any jurisdiction its sleazy, unacceptably immoral conduct.
But Assange *has* denied the claims – and he has not even been charged with anything yet.
Also, there is evidence to suggest that at least one of the women (Ms B the younger one) hasn’t actually made a complaint against him and was quite upset when the police started treating the matter as a criminal offence – she had just gone to the police to see if she could force him to get an STD test. On the other hand, the other woman (Ms A, the one he was staying with) apparently *is* claiming rape. But there are some real problems with her story – such as a series of tweets and text to friends after the alleged rapes was supposed to have occurred in which Ms A writes of how much she is enjoying having Assange stay with her, organises a party for him, gossips about his sexual appetite (and complains about his lack of personal hygiene), etc. It *seems* that it was not until Ms A found out about Ms B that she made a complaint. Now, while that is far from determinative (especially given the nature of the allegations here), it sure makes the prosecution case weaker than it would be otherwise. In fact, that weakness may well be why he still hasn’t been charged with anything – it could be that they want to question him because the only way they can put together a reasonable case is if he admits to certain things (like penetration while the woman was asleep, or taking off the condom without telling her – both of which would be bad behaviour and probably criminal, I hasten to add).
But that is all really beside the real point, which is that Assange is yet to be charged with anything, Sweden has used an extraordinary anti-terrorist measure to get him back to Sweden, the US is currently conducting a grand jury against Assange on charges of espionage and Sweden has a rather sleazy history of rendering people to the USA.
Atticus both the local court and High Court in England rejected the claim that the allegations are only crimes in Sweden. You may read the allegations in the High Court decision which is available on line. I’m comfortable describing one of them as rape and one as attempted rape in standard English.
You must try to be taken in by Assange’s spin team. John Pilger was repeating the ‘only a crime in Sweden’ untruth even though he was present at the High Court proceedings.
The Interpol notice system is not graded. Red is not worse than orange. Red means ‘wanted for extradition’. Orange means ‘he might have concealed explosives’. Hence Assange gets a red and Ghaddaffi gets an orange.
Assange’s legal team knew that. They also knew you probably didn’t. They are taking advantage of your ingnorance, Atticus. They are lying and spinning so that you will help him avoid the proceedings against him.
Galloway is a stooge and apologist for anything related to Islam. This is someone who thinks Sharia law in Iran is justified no matter how misogynistic it is. No, his angle has nothing to do with women. It’s more to do with his politics. There’s anti-war, then there’s traitor.
Yes, you spend less time talking about consent as a relationship progresses. But that’s because you’re communicating better! You know each other, you know what you each want and when you want it, you become better able to communicate with body language and hints. It’s not because consent stops mattering. Consent is not an XBox achievement that you only need to get once.
I feel sorry for anyone in a long-term relationship with Galloway. He seems to think that the more intimate a relationship is, the less you have to care about the other person.
I think Scote (post 10) is dead on.
We don’t know if Assange is guilty of rape, but he’s been accused of it and that should be sorted out in the justice system – and not by members of parliament, fer chrissake. The question those members of parliament -should- be concerning themselves with is… is prosecution for rape what’s really going to happen if Assange is extradited to Sweden, or are there ulterior political motives? IMO, there’s at least reason to be suspicious. The countries involved need to get their shit together and figure out how to try Assange for rape in a transparent fashion that precludes any further political BS.
If Sweden is entirely above board, why didn’t they answer in affirmative when Ecuador asked for assurance that they would not extradite Assange to the US?
This is really kind of an interesting moral question, since there are apparently many people here who are quite comfortable with extraditing Assange back to Sweden even if it means he would eventually go to the USA to spend life in prison on the provocation that he might have committed rape. You’re playing with some dangerous stuff.
Oh, well in that case…we might as well skip the trial, which I was going to insist on, but since you’re comfortable…
Smokey Dusty said:
“Atticus both the local court and High Court in England rejected the claim that the allegations are only crimes in Sweden. You may read the allegations in the High Court decision which is available on line. I’m comfortable describing one of them as rape and one as attempted rape in standard English.”
I never claimed his actions were “only crimes in Sweden”. Indeed, I said the PRECISE OPPOSITE they are crimes in most jurisdicionas, rape in many, “sexual mollestation” in others. I’d appreciate it if you read what I wrote before concluding I’ve been “duped”.
As for the Interpol Notice system, you are quite right that they aren’t graded in terms of the importance of the offence – my apologies for the eror. BUT its still the case that a red notice is very rarely used for offenses where the subject has not been charged – especially where the subject has been co-operating with the authroities, as Assange had been. He wasn’t fleeting, he left Sweeden with permission, he said he’d answer questions in England, and would go th Sweden if charged and he kept both England and Sweden apprised of his whereabouts at all times. This was hardly a case for f’ing Interpol.
Just did some quick research on the european arrest warrant system and realised I got a little confused by my background as an Australian lawyer. Always a problem as the systems are jsut similar enough to miss the differences.
In Australia, and in England until recently, you couldn’t be extradited to another country unless you had been charged there. Extradition for the purpsoes of merely questioning teh subject were a no-no.
But the European arrest warrant system the UK has signed on to arguably allows extradition for questioning without charge to European countries that allow detentin for questioning without charge. That was one of the issues Assange raised in his appeals and lost – which means that, without really realising it, Englnad has given up a rather ancient and important principle. It seems that the law in England is now that, if a European country wants you for questioning, you can be arrested without charge, shipped to that country without charge, detained without charge, and interrogated by that country’s police while being held in custody and incomunicado – all without being charged of with anything. Yikes! But ok, that’s teh law in England now. I stand corrected.
What a disgusting waste of innocent atoms.
Probably doesn’t believe in marital rape, either, because, you know, if you agreed to marry him you agreed to be a permanent dick-receptor.
Atticus
You know, it’s not mutually excusive for the charges to be 100% true and the prosecution being 100% motivated by the desire to hurt Assange.
As for Sweden refusing to do their interviews via phone and such: hello? Since when does the alleged criminal get to decide when and how investigations are done?
And, if all of this was just a plot to get Assange to the USA, then:
-why would they so far follow the law to the letter (which, by now grants Assange very ample protections against being axtradicated to the USA) just in order to then violate it with the full eye of the public?
-Why would you think to be safer in Ecuador than in Sweden? I mean, it’s not like the USA shuns kidnapping or such.
++++
Yes, again, instead of asking the question why those rich and powerful men have this nasty tendency to be sexual predators, they all ask the question who started the conspiracy against them. Rich and powerful men never rape. I suppose that was Clinton’s big misake. Had he just raped Lewinsky everything would have been fine. (No, I’m not saying that he behaved morally)
How many other alleged crimes are dismissed as non-crimes with the line “something which can happen, you know” by elected officials? It seems like rape and various types of corporate malfeasance are the only ones.
Imagine seeing that argument in a cop/courtroom drama:
“Your Honor, my client requests that these murder charges be dismissed. He was just walking down the street when four bullets left the muzzle of his handgun and struck the victim in the chest, something which can happen, you know.”
Giliell wrote: “As for Sweden refusing to do their interviews via phone and such: hello? Since when does the alleged criminal get to decide when and how investigations are done?”
Since FOREVER. Until you are charged, you don’t have to speak to the police. You don’t have to speak to the prosecutors. You don’t have to speak to ANYONE. It’s called the right to silence.
At least that was the situation in England until recently and is the situation in any *civilized* legal system.
Assange *voluntarily* stayed in Sweden for a month after the investigation commenced. He *voluntarily* spoke with the police and answered their questions, despite the fact tha the transcripts of the interviews kept mysteriously ending up in the next day’s local newspaper. He *asked* if he could leave Sweden and was told he could. When Sweden changed his mind and asked him to return, he volutneered to answer their questions for England.
Atticus
Really, stop your knee-jerk reaction and think before you write. The right to remain silent entitles that, just that: keep your mouth shut. It does not entitle you to skip the appointments with the police or court because you don’t want to talk to them anyway. If you’re called to be a witness in court you have to show up, end of story. Whether you tell them that you’re going to make use of your right to remain silent or not doesn’t mean you can tell them to come to your home for a coffee to get that information.
I must have missed when anyone on this board wanted to skip the whole trial thing and just dole out the punishment.
We are not the court. We are not the journalists. We can say rape instead of alleged rape without it causing all Assange’s rights disappearing and him being strung up on the first tree. But you are welcome to pretend otherwise.
But Gilel, you *are* entitled you to skip (or refuse to make) appointments with the police – unless you’ve been charged.
Yes, if you’re subpoenad to be a witness in court you have to show up – but Assange hasn’t been called to be a witness in any court.
That’s the law in the US, in Australia and until recently in England. Until you’re charged (or arrested) you don’t have to do squat.
@Hunt. I wouldn’t skip the trial. I don’t know how you could read that into my comment. I did specify I was talking about ‘allegations’. I’ve got no idea if he dun it or not. I’m quite happy to leave it to a qualified Swedish judge.
@Atticus. I’m happy that you have found Wikipedia a useful supplement to your Law Society practice book. But I don’t really care that you weren’t familiar with Interpol notices. What interests me is the way you were taken in by the pro-Assange spin on it.
Are you disappointed ithat Assange’s crack legal team lied to you about it? Does it diminish your faith in them or your prior opinion of the matter at all? Are you disappointed that the usually excellent Four Corners (I’m guessing that’s your source) journalists also allowed themselves to be duped?
Assange’s battery of Queen’s Counsels (very qualified, very expensive attorneys for our American friends) put the ‘merely wanted for questioning’ arguement to the High Court. They rejected it. He is not wanted for questioning, he is wanted for prosecution. Charging occurs very late in a Swedish prosecution, followed immediately by a trial. The Justices pointed out that if the allegations had occurred in England Assange would have been charged already.
The ‘only wanted for questioning’ argument is another lie spread by the pro-Assange spin machine. If you want the truth please read the High Court judgement which is available on line.
Remember when everybody was ignoring how Assange’s lawyers were eagerly accusing the two victims of accusing Assange of shit like ‘not wearing a condom’? And people were ignoring how the sole source of the ‘the victims are secret CIA agents out to get Our Hero!’ was a notorious anti-Semite with a few sandwiches missing from the picnic basket he’d packed full of feverish bitchez-be-lying tropes? Yeah, I don’t know what brought that to my mind again.
Smokey Dusty – do you ant to point me to any evidence that Assange is wanted for more than questioning? As far as I can tell, that *is* the situation.
Atticus – I recommend Jack of Kent on Assange –
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
“This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.”
And to address the OP source: describing Galloway as “anti-war” stretches the truth a bit, although he’s certainly against one side in any given war.
That’s not the point to my sarcasm. The point is, even if you feel the case against Assange is rock solid, there is enough contention that this is being fueled by American pressure to get him to the US and then silenced in a federal prison for life that it should not seem too much to ask Sweden to assure everyone, and Assange! that this will not happen. They have not done so. They have been asked to do so; they have refused to do so. What should we conclude from this? If you happen to be comfortable enough of his guilt that you would send him to Sweden, you’d better be comfortable enough with it that he might be immediately shunted to America and then imprisoned for life because if you don’t think that’s a possibility, you haven’t been paying attention to how the world works for the last ten years.
It’s not up to the Swedish government whether they extradite anyone anywhere, it’s up to the Swedish courts. The Swedish courts are obliged by treaty to hear any extradition request the US may put in. They can’t exempt specific individuals from being subject to their treaty obligations. The Swedish government could be secretly determined never to extradite Assange to the US, and yet they still wouldn’t be able to give this mythical guarantee.
Anyway, the Swedes would be very unlikely to extradite Julian Assange because (bar the alleged rapes) he’s done nothing illegal under Swedish law. Assange knows this, which is why he applied for Swedish residency before all this happened.
@Atticus. Just read the High Court judgement.
Hunt,
Why do you think Sweden would be more inclined to send Assange to US than UK is?
We love sending people to the US.
Maybe so, but as long as we’re talking about comfort levels. I am very “comfortable” with my belief that Assange should not serve a day in prison for his Wikileaks activity. I’m not sure I’m even “comfortable” leaving it up to some court’s interpretation of international law. I would be comfortable having Assange tried for rape in neutral country, if that is even possible. I don’t enough about law to say.
When I say “more inclined”, that includes having legal backing for doing so that UK doesn’t have.
For further reading:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/08/16/lounge-358/comment-page-1/#comment-434075
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/08/16/lounge-358/comment-page-1/#comment-434099
And for your convenience, here’s a part of Bernard Bumner’s explanation:
How is neutrality relevant? This isn’t a war. The US hasn’t tried to extradite Assange the whole time he’s been in the UK, even though we are happy to extradite people to the US who haven’t broken any UK laws.
What is the basis for the assumption the US wants to extradite him in the first place? Have figures within the US with any influence in this area (i.e. not Sarah Palin) said any such thing? It’s not clear he’s broken any US laws, being an Australian citizen who has merely published documents leaked by other people. Why would the US pursue potentially doomed extradition proceedings with Sweden, when they have no grounds for believing they could secure a prosecution in the US anyway, when at the end of it Wikileaks would still exist?
Frankly, losing Julian “What? They were only Afghans!” Assange would probably go someway to detoxifying the Wikileaks brand.
I wish defenders of Assange put at least half that effort into defending private Manning.
Sorry, that was dumb of me, since I mean the exact opposite. I’d be satisfied if he were tried in a country that has taken a stand against extradition to the US, like Ecuador (after a pretty long deliberation, btw). But as I say, I don’t know if that would even be possible.
No, but many people think the US stands ready to charge and try him.
It would make total sense not to overtly charge him since that would inflame protests against his extradition to Sweden.
Well that’s easy. It’s because we’re rape apologists and homophobes. (/sarcasm) Remember Assange has also defended Manning, which of course doesn’t exonerate him from rape if he is guilty. I’m all for fair trial and doling out appropriate punishment. I am not into cancelling all consideration for his safety and freedom merely because he may have done something wrong, as I said before. This really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
*dances across the stage with a sign flashing: post #51*
Since when have trials been conducted in any old country, rather than the country in which the alleged crime happened?
Ecuador don’t always take such a bold line on extradition: http://world.time.com/2012/08/16/assanges-special-asylum-why-ecuador-isnt-nice-to-anyone-else/
Ecuador’s position on Julian Assange isn’t based on principle. It’s anti-western posturing.
HRW on Ecuador: http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador
Amnesty on Ecuador: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/op-ed-few-things-you-should-know-about-ecuador-beyond-assange-2012-07-17
Excellent place for a free and fair trial.
@Hunt. Why are a couple of professional gossip mongers and big-noters considered such authorities on these hypothetical proceedings. Its hardly the smoking gun Assange fans are hyping it to be.
Why is it that the Defenders of Truth and Justice are so content to spout completely uninformed nonsense about what various justice systems do or don’t require or allow? Why is it that they seem to be working with a model of judicial procedure that only exists in their heads? And what, in the name of all that’s unholy, makes them think that a person is entitled to demand that legal procedures are put aside for them, just because some third country’s politicians may not like them? What kind of monstrous, wish-fulfilment ego-trip are they on?
If Assange had any guts, or any real integrity, he’d be demanding the US extradite him, put him on trial, and show the world what it’s “really like”.
In a movie, that’s how it would go. In reality, he would risk rotting away in a cell for his entire life, his friends, family and supporters eventually fading and then dying away. Get real.
This whole thing is so outrageous. I truly liked wikileaks and i still like it as an idea. But i have to confess, i FUCKING HATE JULIAN ASSANGE. This guy plays on every misogynistic conspiracy theory and anti-us ressentiment that ever existed in Europe. And everyone incl. the liberal press is eating out of his hand. Its rape culture, its patriarchy at work! Its always the same, every accusation of a woman is an evil conspiracy against a poor guy. I cant hear it anymore, the hordes of web2.0 idiots (i call em Mob2.0) repeating the same shit about rape laws in Sweden, about some obscure CIA connection or the evil feminists in the Swedish justice system over and over again. You know what, we need MUCH MORE feminists in the justice system! We need much more prosecutors who take woman seriously!
And now, he is even officially a political prisoner in the eyes of the Peruvian gvt. WTF? How is this even possible? If they wont to piss of the Brits ok – but by protecting a alleged rapist? I hope this whole farce will end soon.
@ Jamesfish & Hunt
It’s not just that it isn’t up to the government to make any promises about whether Assange will be extradited or not. It would directly violate the Swedish constitution for the government to make such a promise.
What does your comfort have to do with this?
The fact that I don’t think his Wikileaks activities should have him prosecuted has nothing to do with it either.
You know what I would be very uncomfortable with? Governments giving guarantees that courts won’t do X in case Y where X is the standard procedure following the law.
As beatrice has shown, there is a very good case for Assange being pretty safe in Sweden in terms of actual legal matter from being extradited to the USA.
Yet, when it came to the USA demanding it, it would still be up for courts to decide the legal questions and not for the government to declare preemptively that it won’t happen.
As for illegal extradition: In that case, why bother with guarantees? If they were determined to openly break the law, any promise beforehand that they wouldn’t is void anyway.
Oh, Hunt, I am real. He left his source to rot, because he is an unprincipled coward. Maybe you or I would turn out to be an unprincipled coward in the same circumstances, but then other people would be free to tell us that we were, as he is.
David Allen Green provides a useful primer on the legal myths surrounding the extradition of Assange, including lovely links to legal experts and commentators.
Assange is frantically spinning this situation, and it isn’t clear to me that his only concern is extradition to the US – I think he is probably quite worried that he is going to be convicted for rape in Sweden.
On the OP, George Galloway is an extraordinarily horrible human being for many reasons, but in this case he is reflecting what probably (unfortunately) a very significant proportion of the population seem to think. Really, this says more about the concept of consent as held by many in British society than it does about George Galloway in particular.
George Galloway, as Member of Parliament, certainly deserves criticism for his ignorance, but this is a good opportunity to educate others by attacking what he said, rather than concentrating on his many other character flaws. It is a shame that the media often concentrate on Galloway as a controversial personality, rather than pointing out the factual errors in his claims. Spokespeople from organisations like Rape Crisis have been solidly rebutting his nonsense all day today.
Oh, and it seems that Ecuador may stand ready to extradite a whistleblower to whom they granted asylum following the signing of a series of trade agreements with Belarus. (Belarus! Of all places.)
One thing that’s certainly true is that this kind of rape must be extremely common. How likely is it that it would lead to a case this protracted and determined for anyone less high-profile than Assange? I suppose one good thing that may come of this is that it publicises a kind of behaviour that’s definitely unacceptable. I’m just not sure it’s going to become realistically prosecutable unless the accused is wanted for something else.
If this thread hasn’t already spent itself, the judgement on our clay-footed hero can be found at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-approved-judgment.pdf
It’s long and detailed but some points include
1. in Sweden you don’t get charged until late in the process, unlike the UK and US where you get charged very early on.
2. the interview is a final interview required before charges can be bought (no prizes for working out why someone might prefer to be in a foreign country when this happens).
3. it is expected he will be charged – these warrants are expressly for the purpose of prosecuting an accused individual
4. All 4 charges were judged to be crimes in the UK although the last, rape charge need not have been as rape is exempt from the dual criminality requirement.
Assange tried to argue that consent was (unconditional) consent and that the woman’s insistence that he use a condom was not relevant to that; that he was not technically ‘accused’ due to differences between Swedish and English legal processes and the warrant was therefore invalid; and that the Swedish official who issues the warrant was not a judge (again due to different processes) and again that the warrant was not therefore valid.
There was no claim made in court of bad faith on the part of the prosecutor.
He challenged the interpretation of sworn events but not the facts (a challenge which was considered by the court even though it had no bearing on the outcome). Read them. At face value its realistic sounding stuff.
But for me the most toe curlingly authentic part has to be the leaked quote from a friend of Miss A who said
Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had “the worst sex ever” with Assange: “Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent.”
Also: just ignore George Galloway.
We all do in the UK. Except occasionally we view this on YouTube.
I would caution everyone that there are some potentially triggering details of the allegations described in the High Court judgement linked to above.
There’s definitely some sort of political motive behind all this. I mean, since when does any criminal justice system care this much about arresting someone accused of rape? /cynicism
Yuck
Here we go again: They just don’t call it rape.
So, once a woman has said yes, she has no say in how she’s fucked, how long she’s fucked and whether contraception is used.
I mean, bitches ain’t shit, who cares about them enjoying it or at least not getting hurt/pregnant/an STD.
We should be careful to recognise that these are legal arguments, so the slightly more sophisticated position that Assange’s defence is taking is that things didn’t happen as described in the allegations, but that even if they did he would still have consent.
The second point was roundly rejected by both the original magistrate and in the High Court judgement, who were unequivocal in stating that such actions would constitute rape under English law. Both said that the first point was a matter for the Swedish courts.
=> Well, in this case, bitchez really seem to be lying:
http://radsoft.net/news/20101001,01.shtml
=> What if he started caressing her genitals while she was asleep ? Would that be rape as well ? (she never testified that Assange had vaginal intercourse with her while she was asleep, and, more importantly, she never testified that she revoked consent after she woke up).
Sexual assault at least.
What’s so hard to understand about the two easy things that:
1) In order to touch people’s genitals, butts, boobs etc you need their consent
2) In order to get consent the other one has to be awake (long-communicated things excempt, like, you know, waking your partner with a kiss)
a) That is for the Swedish Courts to decide.
b) I think you would be well advised to stay well clear of the sexist epithet in that context.
That would be sexual assault.
She alleged that she was woken up by him penetrating her.
What?! You can’t presume consent unless it is revoked! Consent is a positive affirmation to be obtained!
Yours is a very dangerous attitude to consent.
So where do you draw the line ? It wasn´t a ONS – Assange was staying at her place for over a week and they had intercourse many times before that, does that qualify as a “partner” or do you need a marriage license for that ?
I think we can be fairly clear that you shouldn’t insert anything into anyone else’s body whilst they are asleep.
Long-term partners may develop certain rules and understandings on how to communicate consent, but make no mistakes that consent must exist for sex.
Assange is accused of rape, of penetrating someone without their consent; there is no ambiguity.
So what? Consent is something that needs to be obtained each and every time, and marriage certainly shouldn’t grant anyone the right to take sex as and when it suits them.
That´s why I said “seem” – how do you interpret the fact that she thought he was one of the “coolest smartest people in the world” right until she found out that he is also sleeping with another girl ? How do you interpret the fact that she desperately tried to delete all tweets indicating that they were getting along just great after the alleged assaults happened ?
I don´t think it´s appropriate, I just used the same language as the one used in the OP.
Yeah, that is correct (at least for Ardin) I confused her with the other girl that pressed charges.
He was staying at her (her=Anna Ardin, I don´t know about the other girl) place for over a week and they both claim to have had consensual sex many times before that (also on the days where Assange allegedly sexually molested her).
Two people can fuck before the rape. They can fuck after the rape. It doesn’t make rape any less of a rape.
In Galloway’s defense, what he said makes perfect sense aside from the fact that women aren’t sex toys.
@Kesara,
Shockingly, it is in fact possible to rape a partner or spouse, if they do not consent to an act.
This is me being polite.
The amount of rape apologism I’ve seen on the left for Assange is disgusting.
If you aren’t sure of what’s what, go to Bernard Bumner’s link to David Allen Green @64 and listen to a lawyer explain the issues at hand.
I have no idea whether any of that is true. If I was going to speculate then, perhaps she was worried that she wouldn’t be taken seriously by slut-shamers who would do their best to twist her words and smear her reputation?
The allegations must be tested in court; I’m not assuming Assange’s guilt.
It is worth noting, as Owen Jones did here, that:
…Assange’s own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, does not dispute the sincerity of the accusers, arguing in court: “Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange’s conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with.”
I know, which is why I didn’t outright castigate you. I’m merely warning you that playing on the phrase in the context of casting doubt on the allegations could reflect badly upon you.
.
Another warning; there is no reason to name the alleged victim, and doing so may seem like an attempt at shaming. I would advise you not to do it.
In response: consent needs to be obtained each and every time you have sex.
a)Long-term partners may have ways and means of communicating consent that are more subtle than asking outright, but Assange was not in a long-term relationship with his accuser.
b)Someone who is unconscious through sleep cannot consent to sex. Ever.
@Sivi
Yes, I never said anything to the contrary.
Because you know that Assange simply must be guilty. You know that before the trial has even started. Pointing out that in this particular case, the allegations are highly questionable, to say the least (and yes, I am only talking about this one particular case) is therefore “rape apologism” ?
kesara @ 78:
American juries would tend to see those tweets as indicative that it wasn’t rape, which doesn’t mean it wasn’t. I understand Sweden uses the inquisitorial system in it courts, but I doubt Swedish judges are markedly less prone to doing the same thing.
You can look up the google cache of her twitter and bloggy accounts.
Possible. But, if you consider the nature of the tweets and posts she tried to delete, it certainly does cast doubts on the allegations.
Not necessarily, afaik, the swedish prosecutor intends to interrogate Assange, but it is not certain that he actually would be on trial in sweden.
Good point (although she is already a public figure in this context and has already given interviews on the matter)
FFS. Most people who are arguing that Assange should go to Sweden and face trial are not doing so out of a belief that he totally raped those women and should be punished for it but out of a belief that it looks like he could have, and those women deserve their day in court.
Assange has not done himself any favors in my mind by trotting out the “Saudi Arabia of feminism” comment. But. I am willing to be persuaded that what happened was not rape. I am willing to see a court acquit him if that is what the evidence upon full examination and consideration reveals.
But seriously. He has been accused of a serious crime. Let him fucking stand trial for it.
@Kesara,
I’m calling it rape apologism because that’s what it is.
You said “So where do you draw the line ? It wasn´t a ONS – Assange was staying at her place for over a week and they had intercourse many times before that, does that qualify as a “partner” or do you need a marriage license for that ?” and “He was staying at her (her=Anna Ardin, I don´t know about the other girl) place for over a week and they both claim to have had consensual sex many times before that (also on the days where Assange allegedly sexually molested her).”
This is rape apologism. You are saying this implies he did not rape the accusers, which is why it’s legit that Assange is trying to avoid going to Sweden while his legal team tries to lie about the legal facts. If he did not rape them, there is no reason for him not to go to Sweden. He has access to a very good legal team, and has had full access to the justice system in the UK to avoid his extradition to Sweden.
If people are claiming this is a charge ginned up to give the US an excuse to extradict Assange, given the facts of the case, that is rape apologism. They could extradict him from the UK much more easily. They could fake a much easier rape case than this one.
If people are stating that what was claimed to have happened wasn’t legally rape, that’s rape apologism. The High Court has established that the alleged facts would constitute rape in the UK, and in Sweden.
At the point where somebody hasn’t given consent.
What on earth is so hard to understand about that?
I’ve been married for 5 years, together with the guy for 12 years and he isn’t allowed to do any of those things. He could ask me when I was awake if I would like such things or minded them and then he could get consent.
Without that he could be married to me to the end of times and he still wouldn’t be allowed to do that
Also, they’re women FFS, not girls. If they were girls he could join a club with Polanski as girls are children.
@Sivi
I did not say that this means that he didn´t rape the accusers and I´m not going to. The comments you quoted where in response to something different, I replied to the comment “Consent is a positive affirmation to be obtained!” – and pointed out that Assange had a sexual relationship with both accusers and did obtain consent for intercourse several times before the alleged molestations happened (which of course doesn´t mean that it would be ok to have sex with one of them while she is asleep).
How well do you know the legal basis for extraditions to the US ? If you arrived at this conclusion from reading one article (the New Statesmen one I would guess) then you are just as biased as the most extreme Assange defenders.
What is a fact is that the US government is exploring options to get their hands on Assange and have been in contact with both the Australian and the swedish governmwents about that (and unlike the UK, Sweden previously did allow CIA snatch teams to operate in their country). It is also undeniable that, if they would get their hands on him, he would almost certainly be tortured like Breanna Manning and probably be murdered (pardon, I mean “executed” of course).
This makes no sense whatsoever. The only thing that can be said with certainty about the case is that it is in almost every respect highly unorthodox:
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
How is pointing out the many oddities of this case rape apologism ?
You add that ( ) bit now, but having omitted it earlier, surely you aren’t actually surprised that people are interpreting your comments are rape-apologia. Because until that little addendum, added well after the fact, that’s exactly what your comment was.
Perhaps you should start contemplating that its not necessarily *what* you say that is giving the impression of rape-apologia, but *how* you say it.
kesara,
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if this were some conspiracy to take Assange down, then:
1. The victim would be perfect, not someone who was vulnerable to the sort of questioning and attacking that Assange’s accusers are
and
2. The crime would be something that is universally seen as reprehensible, so that the “well, it isn’t that bad” / “it isn’t actually a crime” argument would never fly.
Yes, the idea that Ms. A was a CIA honeytrap is not plausible for many reasons. Both women did not press charges when they first went to the police and they also did not accuse Assange of sexual assault – they just asked the police for advice if there would be some way to force Assange to do an STD test. However, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest os Assange for suspicion of rape and sexual molestation, this order was overturned by another prosecutor who terminated the preliminary investigation due to lack of evidence. And then, more than three weeks after that (after Assange already left the country), yet another prosecutor orders his arrest again (under extremely unorthodox circumstances).
So, it is completely implausible that this whole mess was actually planned like that by the CIA or any other US agency, it is conceivable though that they are exploiting the opportunities that opened up after the initial police report had been filed.
See above. It was certainly not planned like this by anyone.
As an example: how much easier it would have been to plant some child porn on him and how much easier that would ‘stick’ – that is, how much easier a conviction would be to obtain on that charge. Since rape/sexual assault accusations are always assumed to be gold-digging, fame-seeking lies to “ruin a good man’s life”, these conspirators are the most incompetent ones ever.
I am not up-to-par on my knowledge of Swedish law, but here in the States, prosecutors have the authority to press charges on someone, even if the crime victim doesn’t see it as necessary (or even disagrees). So the prosecutor making the decision, rather than Ms. A and the other woman, does not necessarily raise my eyebrow.
Do I think it possible, even likely, that were Julian Assange just some guy (rather than Julian Assange the Wikileaks Guy) the Swedish prosecutors would be chasing him less fervently? Yeah, somewhat. But y’know what? I don’t really have a problem with that. Arrest and conviction rates of rape are terrible. If what is needed are a few high-profile cases to drive home the message that no really, this crap is bad and illegal and you will face the law for it, then fuckit, that needs to happen. Like yesterday.
Now, if and when Assange goes to Sweden and the Swedes start planning – or reveal that they’ve been planning all along – to send him to the US, then I (along, I would bet, with 90% of those arguing that he needs to go to Sweden to face the charges against him there) I will protest, complain, whine, sign petitions, write my congressperson, etc.
Because I approve of Wikileaks and its mission. Manning is a hero and should be regarded as such. The way that she’s being treated is deplorable and without justification.
And Julian Assange appears to be a creep at best, possibly a rapist, and needs to be held accountable.
Not one prosecutor – three. The first prosecutor ordered Assange´s arrest on the same day as the police reports were filed, then the case was transferred to a chief prosecutor in Stockholm who withdrew the arrest warrant and eventually terminated the investigation due to lack of evidence. And then yet another prosecutor reopens the case and orders Assange´s arrest again. And that did raise my eyebrow (and there are many more odd details about how the swedish authorities handled this case)
I completely agree with that. But the Assange case still stinks to high heaven, and in this particular case, the accusations really are highly questionable:
http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/
If it is true that his extradition would be no more likely in Sweden than it is in the UK (which *might* be true, I´ve seen diverging opinions on that), then I wouldn´t see any problem with him facing his accusers on swedish ground. But if there is an increased risk for an extradition to the US, I wouldn´t support it.
Noble. But of little use – you would nevertheless vote for Obama because he is the lesser of two evils, wouldn´t you ?
Do you know who gets to decide that?
The fucking Swedish court system.
So, the fact that he’s someone important who has done some important, needed stuff means that he is above being held accountable for his completely unrelated actions? Also, you know what the difference is between “perfect” and “good enough for now” is? Achievability.
You mean like when Assange basically admitted that he did it without a condom against her explicit will because he thought that, hey, bitches ain’t shit, she said yes in principle so she doesn’t get a say about the details.
Of course not. And as I said, if it is indeed true that his extradition to the US is no more likely in Sweden than it is in the UK, I would see no problem whatsoever of him facing his accusers on swedish ground.
A president that orders murder on a daily basis (the drone war in Pakistan and other countries the USA are not at war with), who does nothing against the indefinite detention without due process of alleged terrorists (Guantanamo), who does everything he can to protect current and former government officials who ordered torture from prosecution (state secrets privilege) while simultaneously prosecuting more whistleblowers than all other US presidents taken together is “good enough for now” ?
Sounds great!
Where did you get that from ?
Quoting from http://samtycke.nu/eng/2011/07/sex-lies-no-videotape-and-more-lies-false-accusations-in-the-assange-case/ :
“Sofia said once in the interview that she was “shocked”. That was when Julian decided to terminate the “foreplay” and turn away and go to sleep. It is evident that Sofia wanted to have sex with Julian. And that she was disappointed when that didn’t happen.
After the so called “assault” Sofia does not say she is shocked or upset. Instead, she jokes that she might have become pregnant. She jokes with Julian on the name of the possible child, “Afghanistan”.
At the time of the “assault” Sofia was not aware that she was a victim of “abuse”. That is possibly why she did not resist or oppose the sexual acts. It is therefore unreasonable to believe that she had sex against her expressed will. It is only when Sophia talked to her friends afterwards that she believed she was the victim of a sexcrime. Who these friends are police did not investigate .
During the “assault” Sofia was not aware that she was the victim of an abuse or assault? She offered no resistance but had earlier expressed that a condom to be used. She had earlier in the night or morning had two, possibly three times, consensual acts of sex with Julian. How Julian would then understand that she did not want to have sex with him? Since Julian received no signal that Sofia did not want to have sex with him, he cannot possibly have had intent to commit a crime, mens rea, therefore he cannot be convicted.
So the conclusion is that Sofia Wiléns interview is credible but there is no ‘crime’ in her story. Just as the chief prosecutor decided in her decision on August 25.”
Based on these police protocols:
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml (english translation not verified)
So, why do you assume that it is?
I quote myself
kesara – stop naming the women. You’ve already been told that. Don’t do it again.
@kesara
Well, I’d be happy to give you another source. How about the Government Offices of Sweden’s page on extradition?
Here’s a few choice quotes for you (specifically, under the section for “Extradition from Sweden to a non-Nordic state”):
“Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year.”
“Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk – on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs – of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect.”
So yeah, it sounds like if the US government actually did submit an extradition request, it’d get shot down pretty easily. Under “Procedure,” it goes on to explain that extradition requests go to the Central Authority (and must include a report of the investigation), then to the Office of the Prosecutor-General if it has some degree of merit. Then, if the accused does not agree to be extradited, the Supreme Court determines if it is legal to grant the request. And here’s another important part:
If the Supreme Court finds that there is any legal impediment to extradition, the Government is not allowed to approve the request.
Personally, I see no reason to believe that Sweden will break its own laws and treaties to hand Assange over to the U.S. for a politically-motivated trial.
Interestingly, that page also says that while the government is bound by the Supreme Court’s decision if it is found to be illegal to extradite, the opposite is not true. In the case that the court finds no problem with extradition, the government can still refuse to approve the request.
If I’m understanding it correctly, one could then argue that the Swedish government could have given a guarantee not to extradite Assange to the U.S. However, I don’t think it’s in Sweden’s best interests to reject a request that hasn’t even, y’know, been submitted yet.
Anyway, kesara, is that a good enough source for you?
Colour me surprised, victims of sexual abuse aren’t always aware that they actually were abused, who would have thought that.
Hell, there’s studies about that.
Ask a woman if she was raped she says no, ask her whether a man had sex with her against her will and she says yes. Really, educate yourself a bit about these matters. Because the culture we live in screws up our heads. People tread out this idea of a stranger in a dark alley rape scenario so women don’t actually believe they were raped when their husband pinned them on the bed and penetrated them although they said no, please. Or they believe that it was their fault. They shouldn’t have worn that skirt. They kissed him before.
If you’re not aware that you have a right, you don’t know that your right was violated.
I don´t assume it – I don´t know if it is true. I have seen diverging opinions.
On the one hand, swedish law doesn´t seem to allow for an extradition into a country where the accused might face the death penalty:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/54/35/77809ec6.pdf (page 3, section 12 – point 3)
On the other hand, Assange supporters claim that this can be sidestepped by the “temporary surrender” mechanism established in a 1984 treaty between the USA and Sweden:
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#TR
Also, there was at least one case where the swedish government did allow a CIA snatch team to operate on swedish ground:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
This was a quote from a public document but ok, I´ll redact the name in the future.
@Pandademic
We apparently wrote our last comments in parallel. Yes, this is a good source – and I have no idea if it is true that this could be sidestepped by the temporary surrender mechanism or not.
Based on a 1984 treaty with the USA, the swedish government *might* be able to do just that. I have no idea if it is true – you´ll find many diverging opinions on this. The case is not nearly as simple as many people believe.
@Gilliel
You said: “You mean like when Assange basically admitted that he did it without a condom against her explicit will because he thought that, hey, bitches ain’t shit,”
I replied with a quote from an article based on the police reports which said that they had only consensual sex and that she was neither shocked, nor upset by having unprotected sex once – and even joked about becoming pregnant with Assange.
I don´t see how your last comment is in any way a reply to that.
@Kesara
My immediate reaction when this case broke was to think it must be a set up, but wonder how it could be done so obviously.
The Guardian article I linked to change that perception when it revealed that the accusers we his former supporters: two women and the co-ordinator of the Swedish WikiLeaks group.
It really does not seem likely that the spooks could have got to all three of these and, even if they did, there is still the problem of defeating the famously fair and robust Swedish legal system.
Let the man stand trial. He’s safer there than anywhere, not least Ecuador!
In what respect? The barriers to Assange’s extradition onward from Sweden to the US?
Well, there would be Paragraph 4 of Article 28 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA):
i.e. not only would Sweden have to grant extradition, but the UK would also have to grant the onward extradition. (Which really asks the question as to why extradition to Sweden is helpful at all.)
Then there is the fact that both the UK and Sweden are fully ratified signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights, which contains amongst its provisions the (Protocol 6) prohibition of the death penalty in peace time, (Article 3) prohibition of the use of torture without exception, and (Article 6) the right to a fair trial.
It would be illegal to extradite Assange if he faced torture, extrajudicial trial, an unfair trial, or the death penalty. He could appeal his case to the highest courts in both lands and the European Court of Human Rights.
But we should be clear: THE US HAS NOT REQUESTED EXTRADITION.
kesara:
Do you think I’m fucking defending Obama or any of this shit? I am not.
Here’s what I am saying: as bad as Obama is, Romney would be worse. Seriously. If the best I have to hope for is “not as epically bad,” then yes I will the fuck register my voe for “no, seriously, I don’t want that really horrible piece of shit over there, I’ll take this somewhat less bad one.”
What is my other option? Taking a stand and “righteously” not voting and then watching Romney win?
Because we’re basically not even arguing about the fact that they had consensual sex in principle, but that she requested a condom and he just went on.
The fact that at first she wasn’t even aware that what he had done was a crime against her does not change that.
The thing is, I don’t even know what you’re arguing. If you’re arguing “the poor fellow’s innocent”, that’s for a court to decide. Simple fact is that the public never knows all the facts, because actually you’d be stpid to publish them in the media before the trial, so it’s stupid to “make a verdict” before the trial has even started.
If you’re arguing that it’s a trick to get him to the USA, there are by now plenty of arguments against that.
I have one question:
Who is supposed to (all of a sudden) extradite Assange? The courts can’t since that would be illegal, a politician could try to order it and commit political suicide for their entire party (not likely), the actual police wouldn’t do it without orders and Sweden doesn’t have a secret police.
How is this thingie supposed to happen in front of all the cameras?
kesara,
The truthfulness of the allegations and the strength of the evidence can only be tested in court. Trial by website, as for trial by media, is simply not sufficient for justice to be done.
Assange cannot be allowed to dictate the terms of his own arrest and to be allowed to evade justice. That says nothing about his guilt, merely that it would be a strange world if people accused of serious crimes (innocent and guilty alike) were allowed to decide whether or not they we arrested.
A valid EAW has been issued, the legality of that EAW has been tested by courts up to the Supreme Court of the UK, and that being upheld it is a matter of obligation that Assange is surrendered to Sweden.
He must then face fair justice for the rape allegations.
@Bernard:
Yes, the legal barriers seem to be that swedish law forbids an extradition to a country where the accused might face the death penalty, and even if they would be allowed to extradite him – the UK would have agree to that as well.
Assange supporters argue that this could be sidestepped by the temporary surrender mechanism:
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
what do you think about that ?
@Esteleth
I get it, if I would be a US citizen – I would do the same thing ;-). It´s just unfortunate that such a two party system means that a president can get away with murder (literally) as long as the alternative is even worse.
An upset, female, teenage, peer of mine once asked me to read her diary account of her first time. It was a classic (so called) date-rape scenario. He was her boyfriend. Some consensual acts preceded the assault.She didn’t want it. She said no, but lacked confidence to assert herself. He ignored her.
Those were the cold facts laid out in her journal. They were hard to spot though. They were surrounded by romantic ramblings. She wanted my opinion as to whether she had been raped.
Rape victims can be very confused and traumatized. I shouldn’t have to tell you that. Particularly in a date rape scenario where previous consensual activities have caused feelings of bonding.
I’d leave it to the Swedish judges to interpret the actions of Assange’s accusers. They’ll have all the facts, not just the Team Assange spun ‘facts’ you’re dealing with.
One thing that will hamper the judges is witness intimidation. Take Ophelia’s instruction to heart, Champ. Stop naming the accusers. Not just here. Don’t do it anywhere.
#116. I directed those comments at Kesara. I should have included that detail.
Kescara, when at least one of your websites uses Assange’s own lawywers—-who willfully lied about the case from the get go and from whom you apparently get most of your info about the victims—-you tend to lose traction on claims of neutrality and fairness. Naming the victims also tends to reduce that option as well.
I read most of the info on the accusers on the english translation of Göran Rudling´s blog:
http://samtycke.nu/eng/
And yes, I am aware that several of Assange´s lawyers made highly misleading comments and at least one of them flat out lied in an interview. But so did the current swedish prosecutor and one of the accusors.
“But so did the current swedish prosecutor and one of the accusers…”
Er, no. You’ve already named the victims repeatedly, cited their lawyers, picked the lawyers’ version of events, cited sites which name the victims and declare they’re pawns of the CIA, and so on.
You haven’t proved any of it.
And you’re still trying to shame and blame the victims. No.
@kesara:
The U.S.-Sweden treaty you’re talking about, TIAS 10812 (PDF here) seems to use the words “surrender” and “extradite” interchangeably. I don’t think that the temporary surrender clause can get past the requirement for the U.K. to approve the extradition just because that particular clause doesn’t call it “extradition.”
And regarding that site you linked, they mention how the US likes to use Panama’s “conditional release” to sidestep extradition laws. But pay close attention: they supposedly arrange for criminals to be arrested in Panama, not extradited there. If it were the latter, they would likely be subject to the usual restrictions for extradition to a third state.
In addition, that temporary surrender option only comes into play after the extradition request has been granted. And that is subject to the same “only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting States” requirement as the normal Swedish extradition laws (in Article II, to be clear).
Yes, I did. So did the NYT, the Guardian and Der SPIEGEL and pretty much every other major newspaper.
Both accusers have the same lawyer, but afaicr, I never cited him.
Nope, never did that.
The names of the alleged victims appeared in the NYT, the Guardian and the SPIEGEL a week after the initial police report
was filed (which should never have been leaked to the public btw, but the swedish police is apparently notorious for that). The alleged victims are, unfortunately, public figures. You can thank the swedish police for that.
I didn´t do that either. I actually did the opposite explained why I think it is extremely implausible that the Ms. A was a CIA honeytrap.
Yes, because I never claimed it.
Is pointing out that one of the alleged victims tried to destroy exculpatory evidence (something which can be fact-checked by simply looking up cached versions of [redacted]´s twitter and bloggy accounts) “shaming and blaming the victim” ?.
It would appear to count as onward extradition; the EAW is more recent and should take precedence.
Is it meant to be this provision which is so problematic?
We would need an extradition lawyer to comment further, but I don’t see how this would overrule the Framework on the EAW.
The question is whether that provision is anything more than a clause which allows Sweden to either defer extradition onwards whilst they complete criminal proceedings, or to have a person returned once they have completed proceedings in the US. This could simply be a standard clause to extradition treaties.
None of that would change the fact that Sweden is bound by the ECHR and could not (legally) extradite Assange to face injustice or death in the US.
Anyway, what about justice in rape cases?
Sounds reasonable (but I honestly have no clue what would happen if the “conditional release” mechanism from Panama or the “temporary surrender” mechanism from Sweden would be applied to someone who had been extradited to these countries from a third state – the laws don´t seem to specifically consider such a case).
Very good point – if US prosecutors wanted to prosecute Assange under the Espionage act, temporary surrender would probably not be an option (I can´t imagine that the swedes have anything comparable to the Espionage Act)
I have no idea how / if it could overrule that either.
In theory, yes. But see:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
The only reason why people are discussing this is the danger of an extradition to the US – if this danger does not exist, it is completely obvious that he should face his accusers on swedish ground. But if there is a danger of an extradition to the US, the case becomes a moral dilemma – let a potential rapist walk free OR risk torture / murder for a potentially innocent person.
So, Kesara, your argument justifying naming the victims is that somebody else did it? Really?
I’m going to point out the irony of saying, “Well someone else did this before, so when I do it it isn’t a problem” in a discussion of a rape case. As if the “she consented once, therefore she exists in a state of constant consent” isn’t a pernicious canard.
@Bernard Bumner:
Thanks for bringing that up; I found something interesting. In the EU-US Extradition Agreement (PDF here), Article 3f says:
“Article 9 shall be applied in the absence of bilateral treaty provisions authorising temporary surrender of persons being proceeded against or serving a sentence in the requested State”
Article 9 is, as you may have guessed, the temporary surrender clause. It appears to be effectively the same clause found in the US-Sweden treaty.
So in other words, if the agreement between the US and the UK does not already contain that clause, this EU-US agreement adds it. And the same would apply for any other member of the EU.
It really seems that this temporary surrender argument is just a boogeyman, at least in regards to not extraditing him to Sweden.
@kesara
I appreciate that you’re using the Ms. A/Ms. B aliases now, but understand that this isn’t an arbitrary thing. Even with their names now public knowledge, by using them yourself you’re participating in a culture that makes women fear bringing up rape charges. You’re contributing to a culture that feels entitled to the identities and details of accusers, so that they can be held up to public scrutiny.
You agreed with Esteleth (#94) that there is a problem with arrest and conviction rates in rape cases. Respecting the anonymity of the accusers (even if you don’t personally believe them in this case!) is one small way to help with that.
If the U.S. government wanted to get Assange, they’d plant child porn. And I don’t mean “they’d have planted”.
So I think all this about “sending a man who’s been accused of rape in Sweden to Sweden to stand trial for rape is just a ploy to get him tortured at Guantanamo Bay” is ridiculous. There are much simpler ways for the U.S. to go about getting him.
@Pandademic
In most european countries, both the accuser and the accused have to remain anonymous until the trial is over. But sometimes, an asshole police officer / prosecutor leaks details to the press anyway (especially when famous people are involved).
I didn´t even think about using their names because every single source for this case uses it (which doesn´t mean that this was an ok thing for the press to do – just that it is absolutely impossible to link to any information about the case without also linking to the real names of the accusers). But I agree that not using their real names, even when they already are public figures in this context, as a protest against a culture that feels entitled to the identities and details of accusers, is a good thing to do – thanks for pointing that out.
Not very plausible:
1. Planting child porn on someone is by now an old trick, and Assange might be a creep, but he is not an idiot.
2. Assange never really had someting like a permanent workplace where child porn could be planted – until 2010, he travelled the world erratically (and even when he stayed in one country for an extended period of time, he never stayed in the same flat for more than a few days).
3. Assange knew that his laptop is likely to be investigated each time he visits an airport, and he is a genuine expert on IT security, data encryption etc.
“she never testified that she revoked consent after she woke up”
I’m just off to my local bank. They once gave me some money, so I assume I can take however much more I like whenever I like.
@Pandademic,
This legal/media blogger (who also opposes the extradition of Assange to the US) makes a similar observation the EU-US extradition treaty, and also notes that the UK-US treaty contains a similar provision.
If that were the case you wouldn’t be discussing the “wrongdoings” and “lies” of the victims that much, but to discredit the charges has been one of your constant themes here.
Yep. Bitch didn’t say he couldn’t name her repeatedly, so clearly, that’s consent to do so. .
I think that has been in the service of suggesting this might be a plot, yes conspiracy, to get Assange to the USA. I agree that if there is a plot, it has been one of opportunity, not one of outright fabrication, which would have been far more compelling. This may seem like spy novel stuff, but then this is a very unusual circumstance, with very special players, and a very powerful government that seems very intent on silencing a man.
No, though I contributed to that idea, that isn’t true. There is no moral dilemma here. If a venue cannot be supplied that is safe beyond a reasonable doubt, guess what, you don’t get to try the man. It’s as simple as that. And all the fucking ideologues on this blog who think otherwise can shove it. You are doing more to tear down the moral fabric of the fight against sexual assault than many of the people you directly oppose. As I’ve said before, this isn’t hard to understand. If anyone actually thinks there is a dilemma here I recommend a long soul search.
So, what? We abandon due process because someone is able to argue that no such guaranteed safe venue exists?
The case against granting extradition to the US should be dealt with as and when it arises, and not before. The Swedish justice system has a right to operate lawfully, and the UK has an obligation to execute a valid EAW.
Would you like to argue that the entire Swedish, English, and European justice systems are sufficiently corrupt to allow governments to overrule their judgement? Or should we trust that the judiciary is apolitical in Western Europe? This is important, because it underpins the entire rule of law and all of our rights.
Who are these people, and what are they actually saying? Are you arguing with yourself?
I literally don’t understand what you’ve written there.
What dilemma?
Well, I meant it metonymicly. Even if this were a setup — which, to be clear, I find entirely implausible as “setup” is generally understood — the US would at this point be turning to something more sure.
I don’t see how European law can work if the courts are supposed to consider the possibility, without any evidence being presented, that the courts or government in another European jurisdiction might break European law. Courts can only decide on the evidence presented to them. Assange’s lawyers presented no evidence at any of the three extradition hearings that European extradition law might be broken in Sweden.
In addition, Assange himself has published no such evidence and if he is in possession of any he surely has a duty to publish it; many people in Sweden would like to hear about it.
If you support the rule of law you don’t get to make exceptions in the cases of people you like.
Perhaps I should add that Assange’s lawyers didn’t even present the argument in court that the Swedish authorities might break European law. So I can’t see why this is a relevant consideration.
Great Britain threatened to storm the embassy of Ecuador over this issue.
So I wonder, when was the last time war was threatened over rape allegations?
If this incident has the best possible outcome for the women in question, when will be the next time war will be threatened over rape allegations?
I do not know Assange. I read about the allegations in question, and after the whole feminism discussions here (FTB/Skepchick) I lend a lot more credibility to them. I previously had some reservations because the women did not act in what I thought would be the ‘correct’ way.
I know better now. I think it is very possible the women were indeed raped.
What is happening in GB now does not do feminism any favours. If Assange is extradited it will not advance prosecution of rape cases in any way.
The backlash though very much harms feminism.
And so I think we should oppose the backlashes against feminism like the OP does, while at the same time be very sceptical that any of the actors in this farce have any concern about the women in question.
Btw, George Galloway is disgusting for far more than the odious statements above. Those are just another set of reasons why nobody should ever offer him a platform again.
They pointed out that they have powers to suspend the Ecuadorian Embassy status under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 and would then be able to enter the premises (using normal Police powers) to arrest Assange. It is quite important to realise that the UK doesn’t legally recognise the concept of diplomatic asylum, and could therefore claim that harbouring Assange as fugitive from arrest constitutes misuse of diplomatic premises as set out in the law. They never threatened to storm the embassy – that is merely the rhetoric employed by Assange. The use of the act would probably trigger a series of legal challenges, and if the UK won, the doors of the embassy would be calmly opened to allow the police to enter.
Suspending an Embassy is not an act of war.
Well, that isn’t clear.
Sweden has been stung by various criticisms that the rate of rape in the country is apparently the highest in Europe (probably thanks in no small part due to how rape statistics are recorded), whilst their conviction rate is low (although it is similar to the rest of Europe). Bringing charges against a high-profile accused such as Assange would send a message that Sweden is committed to justice in rape cases.
Perhaps it should be noted that European courts do refuse extradition to the USA on human rights grounds. Here is a recent example:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/29/britain-refuses-to-extradite-u-s-sex-crimes-suspect-on-human-rights-grounds/
European extradition law simply does not allow extradition for political crimes or in cases which are likely to lead to violations of the defendants human rights. If Assange’s lawyers had credible evidence that extradition to Sweden was likely to result in his illegal extradition to the USA then they should have presented it to a British court. In the event they did not even argue that this could be the case.
Konradius says:
Well, it will advance the prosecution of this particular rape case. But are you serious? Do you think celebrity status is a good reason for not prosecuting a rape case?
No, not at all. And that’s a good point.
And if we were talking about Dominique Strauss-Kahn for instance I’d be less inclined to be sceptical about the motives of the prosecuting powers.
In this case I’m wondering why Assange is not actually charged with anything in Sweden and in stead would be extradited to ask a special kind of questions that cannot be asked in GB.
But then again, I am aware I’m not a lawyer. And I understand that the real facts of this case cannot be judged based on the information I have haphazardly gathered in the news and elsewhere.
In the end I am unaware of other extraditions based on similar situations, while I am aware of failed extraditions based on far stronger evidence/allegations.
And the suspicion that an extradition from Sweden to the US is part of the real reason for the extraordinary effort to get him to Sweden is dulling the message that it is rape that’s being prosecuted here.
Of course, should Assange get to Sweden, be judged there on this case and not be extradited to the US; that would be a win for rape prosecutions.
And while it is true that a subsequent extradition to the US may be illegal; so are renditions. And indeed you cannot argue in court that a government or foreign power can do something illegal unless you have extraordinary evidence for that.
But what is happening here is relatively unprecedented. And so I would be unwilling to bet either way here.
My preference? A better prosecution of rape from the bottom up. So here’s for hoping that the discussions about this case and this topic do exactly that.
In the mean time, make sure never to go to a movie of Roman Polanski. Perp of another high profile rape case, and a failed extradition.
Konradius says:
As I understand Swedish law, he can’t be charged before being interviewed.
There is nothing extraordinary happening here from 2005 to 2009 inclusive there were 54,689 EAWs issued and 11,630 EAWs executed, that is about 45 per week.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/files/eaw_implementation_report_2011_en.pdf
It is possible to challenge a EAW for being improperly issued and for being disproportionate. Assange’s lawyers did both and lost on both counts.
I don’t see why you think the Strauss-Kahn or the Polanski case are relevant. In the Strauss-Kahn case the US dropped all charges against him while he was in US custody. In the Polanski case the US wanted him extradited from Switzerland which is a non-EU country and so European extradition law does not apply.
There is nothing unprecedented happening here. What would have set a precedent would have been a decision by the court that issuing an EAW in a rape case was disproportionate. I’m afraid that neither having a record of doing good works nor being disliked by the US authorities are sufficient reason for Assange to have special treatment under European law.
See point 3 here, which dismantles the myth that Sweden can’t give assurance that Assange won’t be extradited to US for Wikileaks activity.
Has Assange actually been charged/indicted/whatever the process is in Sweden? I can’t figure out appropriate search terms to get Google to answer this, possibly because I know nothing of Swedish criminal procedure.
A few weeks ago they were seeking to move him from the UK to Sweden to face questioning in connection with the rape allegations, but simultaneously were refusing to question him in the UK. That seems to me to have been strange behavior.
I’m very suspicious of underhanded US involvement here after all the shit we have perpetrated in the last decade or so. There do appear to be some eyebrow raising irregularities of timeline and evidence here, although I suspect that may be fairly/very common in cases like this. That said, if the state of the case has changed so that charges have now been filed and prima facie assurances have been given that he won’t be extradited to the US, I don’t see why he shouldn’t be extradited.
If he’s still wanted for questioning, I don’t understand why he can’t be questioned either where he is now or even by video conference, even though that is evidently not the standard practice. I fail to see how the cause of justice (and justice for rape victims is incredibly important) is harmed by questioning him in the UK.
Come to think of it, if charges have been/are filed and a trial is the next procedural step, I don’t see why he couldn’t be tried by a Swedish court by video conference while he remains in the Ecuadoran embassy? Seems that would allow justice to go forward, allow the charges to be adjudicated by the proper authorities, allow Assange and his lawyers a fair opportunity to present their defense, and allay everyone’s concerns that something fishy may be going on in relation to unfiled (or sealed) charges against Assange in connection with WikiLeaks.
To be clear, by “that may be fairly/very common in cases like this”, I mean that irregularities of timeline and evidence are to be expected when it took the victim time to appreciate that zhe was victimized.
Or to have taken time to decide to seek justice for having been victimized, even if zhe were immediately and fully aware of having been.