Skip to main content

View Diary: Top Swedish Prosecutor in Sexual Assault Case Against Julian Assange Quits - Accuser Fires Lawyer (332 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If the serendipitous convenience of these (104+ / 0-)

    charges weren't enough to cast doubt on them, the CIA connection certainly should be. Yet there are otherwise intelligent folks who have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. He's been charged so he must be guilty!

    I'm amazed that anyone would trust our government or those they manipulate - much less the CIA. Personally, I am very much inclined to support Mr. Assange. Truth-tellers are an endangered species.

    And even if he were guilty, which any sane person should highly doubt, the fact remains that he told the brutal truth about some very nasty business of which our government is dead guilty.

    We need more truth-tellers and fewer thoughtless people willing to support their persecution.

    Great job on the diary mark. Thanks much.

    •  Thanks OPOL. And thanks for supporting... (47+ / 0-)

      whistleblowers like Assange and Manning. They had the balls to [righteously] take on our government, and are suffering sanctioned persecution as a result of it.

      (btw, I signed the Siegelman petition in your signature. I can't believe I didn't see it there until now.)

      "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

      by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 07:20:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's really interesting to me... (71+ / 0-)

      Is that the charges seem tailor made for dividing and conquering liberals.  

      No Liberal wants to go on the record defending a Rapist.  I know I certainly immediately wanted to condemn Assange because of them.

      It's just rather strange to me that the government seems so insistent on prosecuting this ONE sex crime case.  When Thousands go ignored, minimized or we find the perpetrators defended by the authorities.

      I wish I could be less cynical.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 07:22:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But Assange has said (58+ / 0-)

        he would return to Sweden to face the charges if the USG would promise publicly not to prosecute him. He's afraid of winding up in an American prison cell, and with good reason. The charges may be valid, I don't know, Assange could both be a journalistic hero and a rapist, but the only force standing in the way of justice, both for Assange and for his accusers, is the United States government. The blame lies there.

        •  I agree. Britain seems to be complicit in this too (29+ / 0-)

          Although I have to give them props for not storming the embassy to snatch up Assange and extradite him.

          The U.S. government is definitely the main persecutor here. They seem to be obsessed with making an example out of these two men, sending a loud & clear message to anyone else thinking about coming forth with damaging information that sheds light on the government.

          Even though the president has done some good things on the transparency front... his administration still has a lonnnnnggg ways to go.

          "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

          by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:02:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The UK has to weight pleasing the US... (20+ / 0-)

            ...vs. getting whatever support they still have in Latin America regarding the Falklands thrown out of the window.

            Ecuador, is doing it because they have issues with the US involving the drug war and oil exploitation. And Wikileaks is part of the picture;

            Relations between the countries have only worsened in the last year after a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks revealed that the United States ambassador to Ecuador was critical of the Correa administration, prompting the president to remove her from the role.

            “She was a woman totally against our government,” Correa tells Assange. “A woman of extreme right wing views that still lived in the Cold War of the 1960s.” According to the cables released by WikiLeaks, Correa says the former ambassador “wrote that her own Ecuadorian contacts told her that the chief of the national police was corrupt and that surely I had given him that post knowing he was corrupt so that I could control him.”

            According to Correa, reform is necessary in Latin America, especially in Ecuador where he believes that money is influencing politics to a degree that isn’t being brought to attention outside of the country’s borders. His agitation with oil companies has irritated the US in the past, but now his campaign against the banking giants that own the Ecuadorian media is causing a stir as well. Correa has praised WikiLeaks for letting the world know the true intentions of secret governments, and says that he salutes them because he has nothing to lose through another leak.

            Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

            by Shockwave on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:55:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I ponder... WHY the obsession? (3+ / 0-)
            The U.S. government is definitely the main persecutor here. They seem to be obsessed with making an example out of these two men, sending a loud & clear message to anyone else thinking about coming forth with damaging information that sheds light on the government.
            WHY persecution and prosecution of whistleblowers who have been trying to live up to "transparency in government" and "reporting crimes that have not been reported or that have been actively covered up?"

            It makes no sense unless the US is out to censor people on an international level.

            Thanks, but no thanks.  Sunshine is the best disinfectant and I'm all for bright sunlight showing off the crimes as reported by whistleblowers - in spite of the apparent organized joint media-&-government attempts to keep crimes hidden and allow the crimes to continue "if only those loudmouth whistleblowers had not reported the criminal actions."  I don't recall any great hullabaloo about bringing the perpetrators to justice..., just the whistleblowers who have acted morally and ethically correct by getting the truth "out there" for everyone to see.

            "Seems like" the rape charge in Sweden is a setup and Assange is right in thinking it would lead to his being sent or picked up by the US to jail him for no good reason.  Make no mistake: IF it could be determined in a legal court of law (not in the US with MCA '06, MCA '09, the Patriot Act, and FISA fiasco '08 still in effect, AND not in a country that seems like it's collaborating and colluding with the US for illegal shenanigans to take place) that Assange raped either or both women, I'd be clamoring for jail time.

            But THIS one time in THIS one case, it just feels like a setup for involuntary extradition..., and we all know the recent history of the US in that regard, don't we?  Especially now that Gitmo is so close and so far away and on a US military base where US laws against torture "should" apply (technically, legally).

            Why the secrecy and why the prosecution and persecution of all kinds of whistleblowers (both Assange and all the rest of the whistleblowers who have been unfairly targeted)?  It just fosters and reinforces the nagging notion that we have a corrupt government - and it doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.

            I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

            by NonnyO on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 05:24:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The simplest answer would be they're not... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NonnyO, gooderservice

              interested in airing their proverbial dirty laundry.

              WHY persecution and prosecution of whistleblowers who have been trying to live up to "transparency in government" and "reporting crimes that have not been reported or that have been actively covered up?"
              Of course, it's more complicated than that. National security is a factor. But the bottom line is that democracy -- or even what passes for democracy in America -- depends on transparency.
              It just fosters and reinforces the nagging notion that we have a corrupt government - and it doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
              It just seems to me that more and more our government is either ambivalent, or plain don't give a rat's ass about what We the People think about how the government is running.

              They've got their super-pacs and special interests,

              "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

              by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 06:42:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think you are correct.... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                markthshark, gooderservice

                ... Unfortunately.

                National Security can't be that much of a factor when I read about military maneuvers with F-22s over South Korea this past weekend (and/or this coming week?) on a Yahoo front page headline.

                I think the "national security" excuse is a crock, too.

                Seriously, who the hell cares about a long-dead ancestor who married over 100 years ago...?  However, when it comes to getting a copy of that record from a courthouse the average genealogy researcher has to jump through hoops, fill out forms, and give or send a copy of a photo ID to the county clerk before they'll sell an outrageously expensive certified copy of whatever PUBLIC documents we need for our records - records that WE the People pay for with our taxes both to get in the first place and have them store those documents indefinitely at the county courthouse (with a copy going to the state archives or state historical society, depending on the state).

                I could go on a long rant about different countries, but I don't have the energy and need some sleep....

                Here's where we're at now, repeating history:

                That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
                -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
                -- Benito Mussolini

                It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.
                 -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.
                -- Benito Mussolini

                I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

                by NonnyO on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:33:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you, Amazing Kreshkin. (0+ / 0-)

              "Seems like" the rape charge in Sweden is a setup

              Amazing that your judicial powers lead you to know more than multiple courts in Sweden who've reviewed the evidence and heard testimony from Assange's attorney, up to and including the Swedish Supreme Court, who all ruled that there's probable cause that he committed the crime he's charged with.  What other powers do you possess?

              feels like a setup for involuntary extradition...

              Right.  From the coutnry Assange himself personally chose as the hardest to extradite from and with the best protections for whistleblowers.  With criminal charges that would severly complicate any extradition request.  Returned under an EAW which would severely complicate it even further.  For a crime which is flatly banned for extradition under Swedish law and for which Sweden has never extradited for (even the CIA double-agent Edward Lee Howards who leaked the names of all US spies in the USSR).  From Europe, all of which is banned from extraditing where any form of abuse (even supermax prison) is possible.  I could go on and on.  Oh yeah, such a setup.  The whole concept is so far into fantasyland that parents in Narnia could use it as a bedtime story for their kids.

              But hey, anything to convince yourself that a guy that you like couldn't have committed rape, right?  You know, what people ALWAYS do when they like the defendent in a rape case?  Toss some smears on the accusers while you're at it, that's a prereq!

              •  Rei - (0+ / 0-)

                We get it.

                From a diary you authored and then through several other diaries, you have made it abundantly and patently clear that you loathe Assange with a white-hot hate-filled rage, you do not wish to get to the facts of the matter, and you want us to join you in throwing stones at him and then drowning him in the sea.  You are explicitly clear about that with your acid-filled words dripping with poisonous venom against anyone willing to wait patiently for a final out come of a court case, and you're making it a personal vendetta to show each and every doubter that they deserve the same treatment you're wishing on Assange.  You'd rather a vigilante committee formed and, without a trial, just took Assange out to the nearest hanging tree, there to be hung from the neck until dead, and leave him hanging there until crows and other carrion picked his bones dry.

                Your first diaries sharing your life and new adventures in Iceland were wonderful..., but when it comes to the topic of Julian Assange you have a blind spot as big as the sun and you don't want to hear anything that would put the smallest seed of doubt in your mind about his guilt or innocence.  You just want him dead, dead, dead and then continue to heap words of loathing and more venomous hatred on him, and you furiously derail every single diary that even mentions Assange (or not), and if no one blindly joins you in your vendetta of blind hatred for Assange, you then turn around and start calling people names with almost as much sarcasm as you reserve for Assange, even if no one was writing to you in the first place with those comments (like you just did above to me).

                You have quite a Jekyll and Hyde personality when it comes to Julian Assange.  Then you carry it one step further and make it personal with the implied attitude:  "Be my friend and agree with me, or you are going to be loathed as much as I loathe Assange."

                I thought I was borderline unreasonable on the subject of rape and rapists - just in general - until you came along and directed every bit of your venomous ire at one man personally, and you turn that same venomous ire on people who have doubts because there has been no trial (you've been nasty to everyone who has doubts, not just me).  The big difference regarding the topic of rape and rapists (especially privileged jocks) is that I call for an arrest, a trial, and a verdict, especially since sometimes rapists walk free without a trial, just like certain lying war criminals are walking free without a trial right this second because no one is willing to hold them accountable for their lies and war crimes.

                Just because you venomously loathe one man who still hasn't even been questioned about the incident, let alone tried in a court of law, that does not give you carte blanche to vent your spleen on those who have doubts about the story and what happened or call them (or me) names with as much venom as you display.  It's unreasonable.

                Anyway, in your blind loathing of Assange and anyone who has doubts, you missed my main point:

                Make no mistake: IF it could be determined in a legal court of law (not in the US with MCA '06, MCA '09, the Patriot Act, and FISA fiasco '08 still in effect, AND not in a country that seems like it's collaborating and colluding with the US for illegal shenanigans to take place) that Assange raped either or both women, I'd be clamoring for jail time.

                But THIS one time in THIS one case, it just feels like a setup for involuntary extradition..., and we all know the recent history of the US in that regard, don't we?

                I can sit back, wonder what the hell set you off on such unreasonable and unhinged blind hatred of one man who has done nothing to you, personally, to make you sound so over-the-top slapstick-comedy funny in that same unreasonableness..., but, now that you've directed your ire against me, personally, and have resorted to calling me (and others) names, I no longer care..., so, instead I'm just going to caution you to back off and examine your own motives for derailing any diary (this one and others, previously) when it comes to the topic of Julian Assange.

                I am always willing to respectfully disagree with anyone (there are many here on DK whose opinions I value and respect which are opposite of my opinions, but I can easily live with that because they've not called me childish names, nor have I called them childish names)..., and normally I don't respond to anyone who stoops so low as to call me names, but you've crossed the line into a disrespectful tone and childish name-calling.

                I'm asking nicely here:  Please do not do that again.

                I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

                by NonnyO on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:16:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do you really have to be shocked (0+ / 0-)

                  ... that a person would take cheering on a rape fugitive personally?  Is that surprising to you?

                  You'd rather a vigilante committee formed and, without a trial, just took Assange out to the nearest hanging tree, there to be hung from the neck until dead, and leave him hanging there until crows and other carrion picked his bones dry.
                  No.  What I want is really, really, really simple.  That people stop the rape apologism, the victim smearing, and the supporting a rape fugitive's run from the law.
                  even if no one was writing to you in the first place with those comments (like you just did above to me).
                  That's how forums work.  If you want private messages, click the messages tab.
                  I call for an arrest, a trial, and a verdict
                  No.  You said ""Seems like" the rape charge in Sweden is a setup".  By that you declared the accusers liars and that you know more than the multiple courts which have heard the case.  Which is damned offensive.
                  Just because you venomously loathe one man who still hasn't even been questioned about the incident
                  He has been questioned, about three of the four charges.  He has refused to go back for subsequent questioning, and that is nobody's fault but his own.
                  let alone tried in a court of law
                  It has gone to two courts of law.  He appealed of the arrest warrant, first to Svea Hovrätt.  The evidence was heard.  His attorney defended him.  He lost.  His defense is absurd.  The court found probable cause that he did commit rape.  He appealed to the Supreme Court.  They upheld the lower court's finding.

                  But oh no, it's a setup and they're just lying sluts paid by the CIA!  Who cares that two of the three interviewing police officers supported 5 charges, one supported 4, the first prosecutor supported 3, the second 5, the first court found probable cause for 4, the second court 4, the British lower court found no fault with what Sweden did, the British high court found no fault, and neither did the British supreme court.  No, they're all on the dole of the CIA, all to support the lying-slut-conspiracy, right?  Who cares that Assange has a long history of this sort of stuff with women?  That he wrote on his blog about how women's brains can't do math and how he's a god to women, how the former Wikileaks #2 wrote about how he routinely pinned down his tomcat (to the point of giving it a nervous tick) because "males need to learn to be dominant", that he was accused of cyberstalking a girl before he got famous, that numerous wikileaks volunteers have commented about his sexism, that he brought his friend, misogyny-incarnate Israel Shamir into Wikileaks and defended him from all criticism, that even the foremost whistleblower in UK history (Heather Brooke) accused him of trying to force her to make out with him (despite knowing she's married) .... oh no, HE couldn't have done it, heavens no, it's a setup and the girls are lying sluts, period, and thus it's okay to smear them publicly!

                  While you're out smearing people who there's a finding of probable cause that they were victims of sex crimes, one of them rape, why don't you take the time to burn my car or hit my parrot?  I mean, if you want to find ways to drive the knife in deeper...

          •  The President has engaged in some good talk (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            markthshark, gooderservice, Tam in CA

            on the transparency front.

            In practice, he's literally the worst President we've ever had on that issue, classifying anything embarrassing and refusing to even investigate a huge range of crimes while jailing more whistleblowers in 5 years than all previous Presidents combined.

            On some stuff, he's been a mixed bag.  But he's run the most opaque Administration in US history and shown the most aggressive response to those would inform the public that we've ever seen.

            income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

            by JesseCW on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 07:57:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And the irony of a Constitutionally-trained... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gooderservice

              Democratic president using the arcane [and antiquated] Espionage Act more than any other -- is not at all lost on me.

              "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

              by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:13:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The US government's sum total of activity in (0+ / 0-)

            this case can be summed up as "nothing".  Barring a small handful of exceptions it hasn't even commented on it.  So "doing essentially nothing" equals "the main persecutor here"?  With that sort of logic, the main persecutor here could just as well be an ethiopian goatherder.

            •  You need to read more. Or read other stuff... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gooderservice

              Perhaps do some research.

              Our freakin' government has had EVERYTHING to do with this case. Just because you don't see them moving the pieces around the board doesn't mean they're not playing the game.

              Done

              "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

              by markthshark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:42:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You need to read more. Or read other stuff... (0+ / 0-)

                Perhaps do some research.

                The freaking Ethiopian goatherder has had EVERYTHING to do with the case.  Just because you don't see him moving the pieces around the board doesn't mean he's not playing the game.

                Done

                •  I love intelligent conversations... (0+ / 0-)

                  Think I'll go find one.

                  But thanks for participating.

                  "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

                  by markthshark on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:43:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If the post sounds idiotic... (0+ / 0-)

                    remember that it was simply mirroring your argument back at you.  So if you want to say "the person in my mirror looks dumb!", by all means, be my guest.

                    Or you could, you know, actually try to defend your point with actual arguments and facts instead of having your argument basically be "'Cause I say so and if you don't agree then you're ignorant!".

        •  ? (5+ / 0-)

          I don't recall reading that State Dept. or the Justice Dept. had issued a warrant for his arrest, nor had they said they wanted to question him.  Let's be honest, if the US wanted this guy they would've had him by now.  Implying that all of this was concocted by our government because of some ridiculous dreamed up reason is very Mission:Impossible-esque.

          The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

          by lcj98 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:42:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  that makes sense to me. I have very mixed feelings (11+ / 0-)

          about Assange. I have no idea whether he did some of the things he was accused of (and it was not only about condoms, from what I read). I've also heard an interview with someone on the NY Times who was responsible for publishing the Wikileaks material and he had serious concerns about Assange's ethics (specifically: about protecting the anonymity of vulnerable people exposed through the leaks).
          That said, I think overall we need groups like Wikileaks to expose what governments are doing.
          People like Bradly Manning who took a terrible risk to show people what was happening are crucial to democracy. (I don't have mixed feelings about Manning).

          While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

          by Tamar on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:47:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And you believe him? It's a stupid question, of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban

          course you do. It's Assange we are talking about.

          •  No, what's stupid here is not following the (6+ / 0-)

            the facts.  You don't have to believe Assange. Believe the Swedish authorities and the U.S.  ... if you're even following the events here.

            Post a link where the Swedish government has put in writing they won't extradite Assange anywhere if he returns to Sweden.  Pretty simple.

            •  Why would governments guarantee anything (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund, sviscusi, duhban

              to rape suspects in writing? Any examples of any governments doing that?

            •  Why the %#$ should they? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sviscusi, duhban

              Suspects in criminal charges are not the people who set the terms. Why should Mr Assange be treated above and beyond the law?

              (Rhetorical question. I know the answer.)

            •  Which would be *illegal* in Sweden. (0+ / 0-)

              Swedish extradition law spells out the order in which things must happen.  It'd be illegal for the government to issue even an advisory opinion before the court ruled (probably a violation of the Swedish constitution as well).  The order spelled out by the law is:

              1) A request is made and the accused appeals.
              2) The courts take up the case
              3) The government issues an advisory opinion
              4) The courts review and rule on the case.  If they rule against the appeal, then...
              5) The government "may" extradite the accused.  This is the government's chance to sidestep the extradition.

              Right now we're at step "0".  There's not even a request.

              And FYI, it is illegal in Sweden to extradite for intelligence or military crimes.  It's never happened.  Sweden has harbored over 400 US defectors, including Edward Lee Howard, the CIA double-agent who undermined the entire US spy op in the USSR.  Think the US didnt really want him?  Couldn't touch him.  Oh, and FYI, the prime minister at the time?  The same Carl Bildt who's know the foreign minister that Assange rails against.

        •  exactly (6+ / 0-)

          This is the key point for me.

          If Sweden is so keen to prosecute, they should be willing to agree not to extradite to the US.

          Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

          by GideonAB on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi, duhban

            Why should Mr Assange be granted his demands before any findings of guilt? Why does is this man held above the law?

            •  Why not? (5+ / 0-)

              If the country of Sweden is so eager to learn the facts and try the case, if the facts are to be believed, why wouldn't Sweden care enough about their own case to agree to not extradite Assange to any country?

              Deals are made every day in prosecutions.  This is no different... except it is, isn't it?  

              •  No that is exactly the point (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban

                Deals are NOT made BEFORE the suspect deigns to allow Himself to be interviewed.

                Deals ARE made in some cases before cases go to trail ... but as a condition of the suspect being subject to the legal system entirely.

                •  The deal had nothing to do with the charges. (4+ / 0-)

                  So yeah, deals are made all the time, and in this case had nothing to do with the charges.  "Charges."  

                •  You're joking, right? The suspect is more than (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  markthshark, gooderservice

                  happy to be interviewed and Swedish prosecutors are welcome at the embassy any time.

                  He's even offered to be relocated to the embassy in Sweden.

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:00:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He refuses to agree to what he *knows* (0+ / 0-)

                    is the goal of the prosecutor.  From the sworn statement submitted to the British lower court:

                    Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
                    He can't be indicted (åtalad) outside of Swedish custody.  Once indicted, the trial must commence within two weeks.

                    There's absolutely no way he doesn't know all this.  Remember when Jemima Khan (who posted a big chunk of his bail) turned from Assange supporter to opponent?  Remember the reason?  She confronted him about this, about how it's illegal to extradite from Sweden, and so forth.  And he refused to answer the questions, outright changed the subject.  He knows that what he's saying is BS.  

                    •  Let's try a touch of critical reading. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gooderservice
                      Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter.
                      The Prosecutor has refused to question him.  Nothing in Swedish law prevents them from doing this tomorrow.  If they decided to proceed after such questioning, that would be a different conversation.
                      it's illegal to extradite from Sweden,
                      You have now abandoned the last remaining pretense of honesty or credibility.  You can no longer be taken seriously by people of good will or integrity.

                      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                      by JesseCW on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:28:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Let's try a touch of *actual* reading. (0+ / 0-)

                        The Prosecutor has refused to question him.

                        Because:

                        It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
                        What part of this is difficult for you?  Is the word "enquiries" the problem, too complicated of a word?  Here, let me help you with that, "help with our enquiries" means "questioning".
                        it's illegal to extradite from Sweden,
                         You have now abandoned the last remaining pretense of honesty or credibility.
                        Oh, I'm sorry, is this the first time you've learned that it's illegal in Sweden to extradite for military, political, or intelligence crimes?  The US couldn't even touch Edward Lee Howard, the CIA double agent who unraveled the entire US spy op in the USSR.  And the prime minister then is the same Carl Bildt who Assange has been railing against.  Sweden has harbored hundreds of US defectors and never once turned one over for military, political, or intelligence crimes.

                        There's a reason Assange called Sweden his "shield" before and was moving Wikileaks' center of operations there.

                        Go have a fun read.  Here, you know, perhaps you should simply begin with a primer.

        •  Which is an absurdity. (0+ / 0-)

          What the USG says or not has no bearing on whether or not he raped a girl in Sweden.  Let me get this straight, if someone wants to avoid a prosecution somewhere, all they have to do is rape a girl in one country, flee the country, and then the third party country must promise not to prosecute them for the unrelated crime in order for them to stand trial for rape?  Is that the sort of system you're advocating here?

          but the only force standing in the way of justice, both for Assange and for his accusers, is the United States government.

          No, the only force standing in the way of justice is Julian Assange and his run from the law.  This could end today if he walked out that door and stood trial for what he did in Sweden.

      •  Really? No liberal wants to go on record as (0+ / 0-)

        defending a rapist? How about the diarist, who totally misrepresented the charges against Assange: http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

        He had sex without a condom while the woman was ASLEEP. He's not being prosecuted for having sex without a condom. You could argue the validity of the case, but you have to acknowledge the actual, y'know, case. It's misogynist as hell to misrepresent these charges. I don't know if Assange is a rapist, but I do know that the diarist is a rape supporter if he can misrepresent charges to this degree.

        •  He did? You're now judge and jury? (3+ / 0-)

          Do you understand the difference between an accusation and a proven fact?

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:02:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Multiple Swedish courts have already (0+ / 0-)

            found probable cause that he did rape SW, after a review of the evidence and testimony from Assange's attorney, Björn Hurtig.  Up to and including the Swedish Supreme Court.  No, that's not a "conviction", but it's as much as is physically possible until he turns himself in.

            •  After all, probable cause is as good as conviction (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gooderservice

              for someone whose time here has consisted almost entirely of asserting that Assange - and no other accused rapist - should be considered guilty before trial.

              It's a rather ... focused form of participation.

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:21:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm sorry, but hear that? (0+ / 0-)

                It's the world's smallest violin playing for the rape fugitive in the embassy.  Poor baby, SamanthaB hurt his feelings by saying "I don't know if Assange is a rapist"!

                Meanwhile, it's been 950 days without justice for his accusers.  And 950 days of rape denial and victim blaming from his fans.  950 days of "no really meant yes", "sex while sleeping isn't rape", "they're just lying sluts and/or CIA agents", "Assange is too important to have to stand trial for rape", and on and on.

                Enough is enough.

        •  I misrepresented nothing... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lisa Lockwood, jrooth, gooderservice
          How about the diarist, who totally misrepresented the charges against Assange
          I made no presumptions of guilt or innocence. I laid out the case made by the Guardian:

          That's all.

          Your accusation is completely gratuitous.

          "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

          by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:28:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  First off, 'the government'? (0+ / 0-)

        Unless you're a citizen of Sweden, it's not your government prosecuting this case.

        Secondly, rape is a crime that fans of the accused almost ALWAYS rally around the attacker for and smear the victims for.  It's one of the hardest crimes to prove.  And the whole conspiracy theory is absurd to begin with.  Lets see if I've got the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy(TM) down pat.  For reasons only beknownst to them, they can only nab Assange from Sweden, not the the UK, or any of the vast numbers of far-easier countries that Assange regularly globetrots to.  No, it has to be Sweden.  Let's just take that as a given for some Unknown Shadowy CIA Reason.  Now, Assange was applying to live in Sweden when the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy decided, "Instead of waiting until we're ready to nab him for our charges, since he's planning to live here, wouldn't it be so much more fun to frame him for rape, the hardest crime to prove?  Let's not only do that, but let's frame him for rape but use a case with the women having consented to certain acts but not others, have there be delays and other actions that could potentially hurt their case, etc, just like in real rape situations, where victims don't live their lives as though they're about to be judged in a trial, instead of a phony "knife to the throat" hollywood-style rape case." Why?  Because the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy just rolls that way, stop asking questions.  Now, let's install our CIA Plant, Ms. Ny, to prosecute him - because of course, we at the CIA have infiltrated the top levels of all of the major governments' of the world's judicial systems just for this purpose.  But let's have her take several weeks to do so, and let's let the news totally leak out during the time that they're getting ready to arrest him so that Assange can run.  And let's just let him flee the country, and not tell Sweden so that they can stop him.  And then we'll stack every court in Sweden, so that up to and including the Swedish Supreme Court finds probable cause upon review of the evidence that he did it.  And we'll stack every court in the UK, so that up to and including the UK Supreme Court also rules against him.  But then when he loses his last legal battle, breaks house arrest and walks into the embassy of a country headed by a Wikileaks supporter, we won't bother to tell anyone or try to stop him!

        Is this how it went down, in your mind?  Great job, Shadowy CIA Conspiracy. Who's heading the CIA these days, Bozo the Clown?

    •  I think it is difficult for many (26+ / 0-)

      people to say they support Assange and still be vehemently against any further victimization of the accuser.

      We've kind of reached this point where, like calling people who criticize Obama 'racist' even if/when a critique is leveled for non-racial reasons, some people seem to feel that criticizing the 'participant' (whether she was willing or not) is likely to be viewed as 'blaming the victim'.
      Just my thoughts, whether valid or not.


      Information is power. But; like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. Aaron Swartz ~1986-2013~

      by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 07:22:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um... (7+ / 0-)

        Criticizing the victim is victim blaming.  

        The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

        by lcj98 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:31:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK. And since I don't agree with (17+ / 0-)

          all of Obama's policies, if I criticize him for signing a bill that protects Monsanto and allows them to continue to bully farmers and landowners into using only their GMO seeds, I am, by applying the metaphor I used in my example above, and using your reasoning, a racist.


          Information is power. But; like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. Aaron Swartz ~1986-2013~

          by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:13:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh please... your whit privilege is showing (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi, duhban, samanthab

            Drop the bullshit.  You know very well the difference between criticizing his policies and making a racist comment.

            Also, by questioning the actions and motives of someone who has been sexually assaulted IS blaming the victim.

            The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

            by lcj98 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:50:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And therein lies the problem (14+ / 0-)

              You state definitely that "sexual assault" was involved.

              The woman spent days with Assange... had sex with him, cooked and ate meals with him... laughed with him... tweeted about the GREAT time she was having with him... all during the time period when the supposed "rape" occurred.

              It wasn't until she found out that another woman had sex with Assange that she went ballistic because she supposedly just wanted him to have a STD test. She did not want to charge him with rape. Neither woman wanted to charge him with rape.

              And this same woman, Anna, went on to delete her glowing tweets about her time with Assange. And she had written in the past a "How To Set Up a Man for Rape" when you get angry with him.

              She allowed herself to be manipulated by Claus and his political connections.


              A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

              by bronte17 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:49:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dailykos, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dailykos (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Quicklund, duhban

                Geez.

                Look, I tried to be reasonable...

                by campionrules on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:04:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  it doesn't matter what the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Quicklund, duhban

                complaintant wants in Sweden. It's what the actual crime is. By Swedish law Assange's alleged actions are rape.

                You're claiming she was manipulated by Claus, but until there's a trial that's your unsubstantiated opinion.

                This has all the earmarks of defending an accused rapist by destroying the accusers reputation. Something that, in practically any other situation would be utter anathema on this site.

                47 is the new 51!

                by nickrud on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 02:30:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  markthshark

                  The purpose of this accusation... to split liberals and to deflect attention from the heinous crimes that were actually committed in our names.

                  Torture. Collateral Damage. Lies. War based on lies. Suppression of journalists. Cold blooded murder of journalists. Malfeasance of government.

                  Rape of children. By CACI... a US endorsed mercenary. Rape. of . little. CHILDREN. by. United States. mercenaries.

                  We focus on the voyeurism of consensual sexual mating habits of grown adults. But don't give a damn about those Iraqi children. With their mothers watching and listening to the horror of the rape of their child.

                  And so the fainting couches come out and the pearl clutchers whine about the supposed rape of two grown women who engaged willfully in sexual activity for days.

                  But, the other crap... gets stuffed down the shit shoot. Because our priorities are so easily manipulated.


                  A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

                  by bronte17 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 07:42:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  CONSENSUAL!?! (0+ / 0-)

                    there it is in a nutshell. Sleeping women consent to sex. Yep.

                    I can, and do, think about more than one thing at a time. You know, that a man can potentially be both an utterly unregenerate sexual manipulator deserving of investigation based on complaints and be a whistleblower of the highest quality. One does not negate the other.

                    47 is the new 51!

                    by nickrud on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:28:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We're all adults here and you know in your (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Anorish

                      heart of hearts that these charges against Assange are politically motivated.

                      INTERPOL warrant, torture, solitary confinement, egregious loss of life and liberty for years on end... do you not think that Assange has already paid a seriously heavy price for whatever slight, real or imagined transgressions he committed during the consensual sexual interplay?

                      Hell, the United States CACI mercs who raped little children and tortured innocent people and murdered even more innocent people walk free and strut their stuff like they are Gods.

                      Our priorities are so out of whack.


                      A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

                      by bronte17 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:46:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, who gives a rat's arse... (0+ / 0-)

                        That two of the three initial police investigators supported 5 charges against Assange one supported 4, the first prosecutor 3, the second 5, the Svea court of appeals found probable cause for 4, the Supreme court upheld the 4, the British lower court found no fault with the Swedish process, the British high court found no fault with the Swedish process, and the British supreme court found no fault also... no, you know in your "heart of hearts" that they're all wrong.  Why?  Because... because... he's a hero, that's why!  And heroes never rape!

                        Please describe what's so unusual about an interpol warrant from a man found for probable cause of having committed rape who goes to another country and refuses to go back and face prosecution?

                        Torture?  Who has tortured Assange?   Solitary confinement?  Assange has never been in solitary confinement.  You're rendering these words meaningless by using them on Assange.

                        "Egrigious loss of life and liberty"?  It is Assange who is doing this to himself.  Even if convicted and given the maximum sentence he'd already be over halfway through it if he hadn't been fleeing the charges.

                        "Consensual"?  Are you calling f*ing a sleeping girl to work around her repeated and expressed refusal to consent to his preferred form of sexual actuvity "consensual"?  Are you calling pinning a girl down and trying to pry her legs open to force one's preferred form of sexual activity until she curls up into a ball and nearly starts crying "consensual"?  Do you have any idea how incredibly offensive that is?

                        Hell, the United States CACI mercs who raped little children
                        Oh, I'm sorry, other people on the other side of the world have raped, therefore, we should just let other people charged with rape off scott-free.  Impeccable logic there!
                        •  The no-sleepy sex-after-night-of sex (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Anorish

                          charge and the audacity of a man to press his penis into the back of his consensual sex partner. Which are nothing more than MISDEMEANORs in Sweden. Yet, we have a man who has indeed been placed in solitary confinement (look it up and quit lying), had his teeth broken by laced food while in that solitary confinement and has lost years of his life and his freedom because he had morning sex with a princess who was a consensual sexual partner just a few hours before and she was so comfortable that she fell asleep beside him.

                          At the end of the day, evidence is what matters. And what we have in this case are sexual encounters that were consensual and the women corroborate that fact. The evidence of "rape" versus "deliberate molestation" for pressing a penis against a woman who had just voluntarily had days of sex with you... those things are not so easily evidentiary.

                          The leading Swedish prosecutor made the statement that "there is no reason to suspect he has committed rape" and the arrest warrant was canceled. In her judgment, the circumstances did NOT rise to rape.

                          Of course, it got politicized then, and Finne was withdrawn and Ny plopped herself down into the middle and her judgment was in direct opposition to Finne's logic. And off we went with the disproportionate and abusive hand of the witchhunt prosecutorial fist.

                          And here we are. Assange has NOT been charged with any offense and of those accusations that have been made... they are misdemeanors. Yet, the circus surrounding the accusations against him have risen to extreme disproportionate abuse of the law.

                          Meanwhile, no examinations have been made of the war crimes and the deliberate murderous targeting of journalist after journalist. No examination and INTERPOL Warrants for the rapists of the Iraqi children in US torture camps.

                          As for the unusual Interpol warrant... give me proof of Interpol warrants issued for misdemeanor morning-after-sleepy sex and for "pressing your penis" into your CONSENSUAL sexual partner's back JUST HOURS AFTER CONSENSUAL SEX.

                          You would be hard pressed to find even a handful of warrants for malicious rape and dismemberment and broken bottle rape... let alone these misdemeanor accusations.

                          And you are personalizing the sexual encounter and making it your own. Way too much.


                          A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

                          by bronte17 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 01:06:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Re. (0+ / 0-)
                            The no-sleepy sex-after-night-of sex (0+ / 0-)

                            charge and the audacity of a man to press his penis into the back of his consensual sex partner

                            In regards to the above description of f*ing a sleeping girl to work around her repeated refusal to consent to one's preferred form of sexual activity,

                            Fuck you and every rape supporter like you.

                            Sincerest regards,
                             Rei

                          •  Proportionality is the key here (0+ / 0-)

                            and the evidence. Both of which weigh heavily against the prosecutorial machinations and persecution.

                            You need to NOT take this so personally. You have personally wrapped yourself in this saga. For some reason. From all appearances, it isn't good for your health.


                            A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

                            by bronte17 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 08:53:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  I can't be on this thread. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban, samanthab

                If I read one more post like the above so grossly misrepresenting the facts of the case, I'm going to scream and throw my computer.

                You rape apologists can have this thread, I can't take it.

                No, on second thought, I'll leave it with only one thing: this, and my diary history.  There, done, all yours.  Go support the self-proclaimed chauvanist who wrote articles on his blog about how he's a god to women and how women's brains can't do math, who multiple courts have revieed the evidence (with his attorney testifying in his defense) that he F*ed a sleeping girl to work around her repeated and explicit refusal to consent to unprotected sex (courts up to and including the Swedish Supreme Court) and found probable cause that he did it, and who even other whistleblowers have accused of this sort of ** from him... feel free to talk about how wonderful he is and how it's all a bunch of lying sluts setting him up, just like fans of the accused say about the accusers in every goddamned rape case.  I won't be here to say anything.

                •  Thank you. I'm sure Lisa Lockwood has links to (0+ / 0-)

                  the post where the victim wrote about how to set up a man for rape. I'm sure Lisa Lockwood has a rulebook on how long you can spend with a man before he's entitled to rape you. 30 minutes?

                  •  Which is also BS (0+ / 0-)

                    And I can't believe I let myself back into this thread.

                    1) AA (who wrote the "article") is NOT the person for who the rape charge is about.  Click the damned link above.  SW wrote no such articles, and by all standards lived a rather quiet, uninteresting life.

                    2) The article, written many years ago, is not about "setting a man up for rape".  It's about getting your ex boyfriend and his new girlfriend to break up.  And the first rule was basically "Don't".  

                    3) Can you imagine what several million dedicated followers would find if they looked into everything you've ever written on the internet?  Has everything you've ever written on the internet, at every hour of the day, no matter what's going in your life, been beyond criticism?

                    But not like it matters.  He's Julian F'ing Assange, Liberal Hero.  Who cares if he already had accusations of cyberstalking before he got famous, who cares about all the former Wikileaks staffers who talked about his sexism, who cares about him pinning the foremost whistleblower in UK history against a wall and trying to make out with her despite knowing she's married... nah, he could NEVER do anything wrong!  And if multiple courts of law upon review of the evidence declare that there's probable cause he did it?  CONSPIRACY!  Who gives a damn that he himself chose Sweden as the most whistleblower-friendly extradition-unfriendly developed nation on the planet, calling it his "shield" and applying for a residence permit, and was there to move Wikileaks operations there after alienating most of his team in Iceland...

                    Okay, trying once again to stay away from this thread...

                  •  Not sure why your vitriol has been (4+ / 0-)

                    leveled at me. I said nothing about how long she was with him, or setting him up. I just said what I said.
                    What I did say (to paraphrase) is that some people feel it is difficult to support Assange while still being vehemently opposed to victimizing further the lady he is accused of raping.
                    Don't put words in my mouth, please.


                    Information is power. But; like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. Aaron Swartz ~1986-2013~

                    by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:54:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Where were you when the Iraqi children (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  markthshark

                  were raped? With their mothers nearby.

                  Where the hell is your outrage?

                  Where is your outrage over the cold-blooded murder of journalists?  Collateral Murder for anyone who hasn't possibly seen this.

                  Where is your outrage over the rivers of blood and sky-high bone piles of innocent people murdered by lies?

                  And you want us to suppress that because you have superior standing to be all and know all about a consensual sexual encounter that lasted for days between two consenting? Are you like a drone or something and you had a front row seat?

                  Your reaction and your behavior is exactly what has been primed with this rape pumping. And like clockwork you come out of the woodwork to stake your superiority.

                  Well, tough shit. The children come first. I am past sick of death and the damn horse he rode in on.


                  A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

                  by bronte17 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 07:58:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh oops, silly me! (0+ / 0-)

                    We should hand Assange a get-out-of-rape-free card because an organization he ran posted a video on the net.  Hey everyone, guess what?  Assange can rape at will and not get punished, bronte17 says so!  Lie back and and take it girls, he's too important to go to jail!

                    What else should we let him get away with?  Murder?  Kidnapping?  Arson?

                    And lastly...

                    FUCKING A SLEEPING GIRL TO WORK AROUND HER REPEATED AND EXPLICIT REFUSAL TO CONSENT TO A PARTICULAR SEXUAL ACTIVITY IS NOT CONSENSUAL AND IS OTHERWISE KNOWN AS RAPE.

                    Thank you very much.

                    •  holy shit honey... you really greased that (0+ / 0-)

                      slippery slope.

                      Yeah... your buttons have definitely been pushed and are clanging out of control. As was intended all along by the propaganda.

                      You do not even give a shit about the actual factual undercurrents of this entire charade. That is unfortunate.


                      A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

                      by bronte17 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:26:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  None of which is true. (0+ / 0-)

                Let's go down each of your "facts", shall we?

                1) "The woman spent days with Assange"

                No, the rape case is about SW, not AA, and she did not spend "days" with Assange.  Only AA did.  Assange left SW shortly after the incident, right after cracking jokes about how he should carry sugar pills disguised as birth control pills.

                2) "Had sex with him"

                I'm sorry, but if we're talking about a rape case, don't you think that'd be a given?  To retierate, though, there are no rape charges concerning AA.

                3) "Cooked"

                There is nothing in any of the testimony to suggest that AA ever cooked for him.  She might have, but it's just something you're making up.

                4) "And ate meals with him"

                She was at the crayfish party with him, this much we know.  But he ducked out of the party partway through, and we don't know whether they ever sat together at it.  Again, there's nothing in any of the testimony which says that she ever even ate with him (even though it would be highly likely that she did at several points).

                Both #3 and #4 are totally irrelevant, but it just goes to show how you're just making s** up.

                5) "Laughed with him"

                Again, totally made up.  There is no "laughing with him" reported in the testimony from AA or anyone talking about her.

                6) "tweeted about the GREAT time she was having with him"

                No, the tweet from the party was about hanging out in the cold with the world's smartest *people (plural).

                7) "all during the time period when the supposed "rape" occurred."

                No, the incident for which he is charged for rape happened after the crayfish party.

                8) "because she supposedly just wanted him to have a STD test. She did not want to charge him with rape. Neither woman wanted to charge him with rape."

                No, it was SW who the testimony states wanted to force him to have an STD test.  But SW did tell people before she went to the police, according to the testimony, that she'd been raped.  Like most rape victims do, she did not want to end up publicly smeared by the accused and his fans.  Only in in this case, there's millions of them.

                And you're one of them who's doing that.

                After her testimony, there wasn't time for SW to review the report (she came back after the leaked police report for subsequent questioning, before the first of Assange's trials in Sweden, at Svea Hovrätt).  She did, however, consent to a "rape kit" and request legal representation (the legal representative of the two women, Claes Borgström, was until just recently the one who was pushing forward the case for them - including getting it reopened to begin with).

                9) "And this same woman, Anna"

                Wrong woman.  Again.

                10) "Went on to delete her glowing tweets about her time with Assange"

                As mentioned, there were no "glowing tweets about her time with Assange".  The tweets from during the time he was there were deleted after talking with the police, and neither the police nor courts have found any sort of formal fault with her actions.  She gave a stated reason at the time of the deletions, to try to minimize smears of her from the media and Assange's fans.  Of course, it only served to make it worse from people like you.

                11) "And she had written in the past a "How To Set Up a Man for Rape" when you get angry with him."

                Wrong, the post was about how to get your cheating ex boyfriend to break up with his new girlfriend, never talks about rape, and the first step is basically "don't".  And I'm sorry, if I had millions of people scrutinize everything you've ever written on the net, you think I wouldn't find something embarrassing?

                And again, to reiterate, we're still talking about AA.  Who the rape case is not about.

                12) "She allowed herself to be manipulated by Claus and his political connections."

                His name is Claes, not Claus.  And she's the one who just fired him for not focusing enough on the case and wasting his time with the press.

            •  Bullshit. It has nothing to do with "whit (sic) (6+ / 0-)

              privilege" and you know it.  

            •  wtf is your problem? "whit privilege"?? (7+ / 0-)

              seriously?
              You are kindly encouraged to back off on the assumptions and the insults.


              Information is power. But; like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. Aaron Swartz ~1986-2013~

              by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:54:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  This isn't about Pres Obama (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban
        •  Newsflash: (9+ / 0-)

          There's a distinct possibility, given the many and varied irregularities, that Mr. Assange was deliberately set up - and that they were complicit in it.

          If (please note the "if") this is the case, are they "victims" at all?

          "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

          by Australian2 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 11:17:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ::blink:: (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            campionrules, sviscusi, duhban, samanthab

            Got...  them chicks always be lyin', man.

            The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

            by lcj98 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 11:26:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, of course ... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nota bene, JesseCW, markthshark

              women never lie about rape.

              (Note, absent contrary evidence, I assume you don't really believe that women never lie.  I am merely applying the same standards to you that you did to Australian2 when you interpreted her/his comment as a sexist position that "chicks always be lyin'".)

              (Second note:  I do not, in fact, endorse the hypothesis that the accusers are part of a conspiracy to set him up.  I think it far more likely that they are telling the truth and acting in good faith, but that Swedish and US officials are exploiting this situation for their own purposes.)

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 11:45:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Studies vary greatly, but a median of around (0+ / 0-)

                10% of rape cases are false reports.  

                But nearly always fans of the accused rally to their side and smear the victims.  And it's the most sickening thing a person can do in such a situation.

            •  You are working this diary to your best ability (6+ / 0-)

              aren't ya'?

              Shivvin' your way down the thread to cast those aspersions and seed doubt in people's minds.

              Your ilk and the CIA have made sure that the name Assange immediately brings to mind "rape" instead of "Collateral Damage" and torture and malfeasance and suppression and murder of journalists.


              A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

              by bronte17 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:53:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "I don't recall reading about..." (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Klusterpuck, dadoodaman, markthshark

                says it all.

              •  We all know how good the CIA is at exploiting... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gooderservice

                the tawdry, ill-timed affairs of powerful politicos all over the world, including in this country.

                History is rife with examples.

                The goons at Langley always find a way to justify the means to an end without regard to the lives destroyed and other collateral damage along the way.

                "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." ~ Aldous Huxley

                by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:23:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Blow back is a bitch (0+ / 0-)

                  And the Iraq War is bad karma.

                  A few big heads need to roll... at some point.

                  And we need to remove the rationalizations of torture along with its integration into our national psyche. The Greatest Generation would be ashamed at how far we've fallen.


                  A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

                  by bronte17 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:38:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Because that's EXACTLY what I said. (0+ / 0-)

              Oh, wait - it isn't. In fact, it's not even remotely what I said.

              Either learn to read, or learn to argue without lying about your opponent's statements. Either's fine by me.

              "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

              by Australian2 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:46:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  No, they're not victims, they're alleged (9+ / 0-)

            victims, and judging by their actions after they were "raped," that says they're not victims.  

            Really?  You're raped and you hang out with the rapist for days afterwards of your own volition under no threat, whatsoever, and even throw a party in his honor?  Common sense should come into play somewhere here.

            •  First off... (0+ / 0-)

              Get your facts straight.  There are no rape charges concerning AA.  AA was the one who was "with Assange for days".  SW is the one who the rape charge is about.  She was described as being in a state of shock until he left shortly thereafter, then basically going into a right proper freakout, not going into work, and calling friends seeking console.

              Secondly, I'm sorry, please, tell me, how DOES a girl have to behave to have "really been raped"?  Because you're so good at judging, please tell me!  I guess I wasn't really raped because I didn't run screaming to the police, eh?  Heck, I even let my rapist walk me back to the car and waited for him while he stopped to urinate in the street.  Why?  Hell if I know, I didn't exactly have "Get Raped" at the top of my TODO list that night.

              Believe it or not, most rape victims are in shock.  Denial and self-blame are common.  You want to tell yourself that what happened didn't matter, play it down, convince yourself that it's best to just forget about it.  You make excuses for the perpetrator. Heck, I've met two women who actually ended up dating their rapists, just to try to make it feel less like rape.

              Oh hey, I'm sorry, please continue lecturing me about how rape victims are supposed to act.  

          •  Then Assange should go to trial & clear his name (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban, samanthab

            What a concept.

    •  one point (6+ / 0-)

      We do not have to rely upon any theories about the CIA.

      The fact that Sweden will not agree not to extradite Assange speaks volumes for me.

      Assange may well be guilty of rape but that does not mean he should have to take the risk of being convicted in the US.

      The "crime" the US is accusing Assange of, did not occur on US soil.

      Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

      by GideonAB on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 02:03:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, crazy Sweden, what are they up to? (0+ / 0-)

        How dare they not refuse to violate their own extradition law (which prohibits the government from ruling on a case before the judiciary) in order to rule on a nonexistant extradition request as a precondition for a fugitive to turn himself in, so that he can't be extradited for a crime that it's illegal in Sweden to extradite for?  Don't they know that Assange is the awesomest awesome that ever awesomed and is so far above the law that they need to change or violate their own laws for him?

    •  He has not been charged - they want to question (6+ / 0-)

      him in Sweden. He offered at the outset to be interviewed by video link, but that wasn't good enough for the prosecutor. They demanded he return to Sweden, which is why so many are suspicous of the Swedish prosecutor's motives.

      •  Assange has been 'anklagad'. (0+ / 0-)

        The process for a person being 'anklagad' is similar to that of being charged in the US or UK.  He has not been "åtalad" (which is best translated as "indicted") because once åtalad the trial must commence within two weeks.

        As for the official sworn statement of the prosecutor:

        Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
        The Swedish judicial system has already found probable cause that he committed the crime, right up to and including the Supreme Court, including a full review of evidence and testimony from Assange's attorney in Svea Hovrätt.
    •  What (0+ / 0-)

      Wikileaks has been releasing stuff against the US regularly since early 2007.  And there is no damned "CIA connection".  The claim comes from a counterpunch article written by one of Assange's friends, Israel Shamir (who's also a famous holocaust denier and unimaginably sexist author), and goes like this: AA once wrote a couple articles about Cuba for an online magazine, which is connected to a group, which is connected to another group, which some professor says headed by a guy, who's also connected to a group, which headed by a guy, that a blog says is a CIA agent.  AND that she once worked with a women's rights group in Cuba that once hosted a parade in Florida, where a guy accused of bombing a plane marched beside Celene Dion.  Therefore, CIA agent!

      Let me try - all we have to do is connect the dots and we can find out who's behind this conspiracy.  AA is involved in the same political
      party as politician and actor Gert Fylking... who voiced a vehicle in the
      Swedish version of the Pixar movie "Cars"... which was written by Dan
      Fogelman... who also wrote "Crazy, Stupid Love", starring... Kevin Bacon!
      My god, Kevin Bacon is behind all this!

      Amazing how you can prove essentially anything you want when you do what
      that original Counterpunch article did.

      "which any sane person should highly doubt"

      Yeah, any sane person should doubt the rulings of multiple courts who've had a full review of the evidence, including testimony from Assange's defense, up to and including the Swedish supreme court, and the British courts who found no irregularities with the process, up to and including the British supreme court.  Only a lunatic would trust the opinions of literally half a dozen courts in two separate countries!  One of which Assange fled to, and the other of which - Sweden - was the country Assange personally chose as the most whistleblower-friendly, extradition-unfriendly developed country in the world, calling it his "shield" and working on moving Wikileaks' operations there after alienating most of its staff in Iceland.

      "And even if he were guilty ... the fact remains that he..."

      No, FULL STOP.  There is no "fact remains that".  RAPE IS RAPE.  It doesn't matter what else a rapist does, they BELONG IN JAIL.  It doesn't matter what else he does, we don't praise scumbag rapists.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site