Skip to main content

I know this won't be a popular diary because it stands against someone that most of us really want to like.  As much of a debate as there's been over Wikileaks, I think most people here at Daily Kos are proud of Wikileaks for standing up to government secrecy and helping derail policies involving corruption and human rights abuses by shining the light of day on them.  And as a consequence, have been proud of its leadership for doing so, in particular, Julian Assange.

But I'm not here to talk about Wikileaks.  I'm here to talk about rape.

I used to use a Linux filesystem called "ReiserFS".  At the time, it was the best filesystem out there - fast, reliable, scaleable, etc.  It existed because of the hard work of Hans Reiser, a talented programmer.  I no longer use this filesystem because it's no longer readily available.  Because Reiser brutally murdered his wife and buried her body in a shallow grave, and after denying it and hiding the evidence for a long time, admitted it in a plea bargain and led the police to her body.

Perhaps closer to home for most people here, John Edwards captured the hearts - and the vote - of a large portion of the Democratic electorate in the primaries, with his populist rhetoric and voting record. And we all know the story of course of what transpired - cheating on his sick wife, fathering a child with the girl, all of the lying, the hiding, the illegal payoffs, etc.  

A person can do lots of good things and still do something horrible.

There's been lots of talk about what's going on between Julian Assange and the Swedish prosecutors, brought back into the light by his appeal for asylum in Ecuador.  Normally when there are charges of rape, people on DailyKos side strongly with the victims - but not this time.  The talk here generally ignores the victims and is based on the theory that the whole thing is a setup by the prosecutor to get him illegally extradited to the US, where he'll them face Bradley Manning-type conditions.  I could go into everything that's wrong with this notion, but just to debunk some of the key arguments that keep coming up:

"There's no charges against him.  If they really wanted him, they'd charge him.": Swedish law prohibits raising charges not on Swedish soil against a subject who hasn't been given the opportunity to defend himself against the charges to be filed.

"They should just accept his offer to chat via Skype.": Suspects cannot dictate the terms of their questioning, a "skype interview" isn't at all like an actual police questioning, and as above, he can't be charged remotely.

"The real reason they're not charging him is because they know the charges are baseless.": Not only does Sweden believe the charges are not baseless, but the British court reviewing his extradition request found that there would be just cause to try him even in the UK.

"He's just being charged with a minor crime, and the only penalty is a fine.": No form of rape is a "minor crime", and while there are different categories of rape in Sweden and he's being charged with the least severe of them, he's still facing a sentence of up to four years.

"He's just being charged for having sex without a condom and the girls waited days before filing charges and didn't decide right away that it was rape.": This one is the real subject of this diary.

Here's the actual claims against Assange:

The allegations centre on a 10-day period after Assange flew into Stockholm on Wednesday 11 August. One of the women, named in court as Miss A, told police that she had arranged Assange's trip to Sweden, and let him stay in her flat because she was due to be away. She returned early, on Friday 13 August, after which the pair went for a meal and then returned to her flat.

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.

On the following morning, Saturday 14 August, Assange spoke at a seminar organised by Miss A. A second woman, Miss W, had contacted Miss A to ask if she could attend. Both women joined Assange, the co-ordinator of the Swedish WikiLeaks group, whom we will call "Harold", and a few others for lunch.

Assange left the lunch with Miss W. She told the police she and Assange had visited the place where she worked and had then gone to a cinema where they had moved to the back row. He had kissed her and put his hands inside her clothing, she said.

That evening, Miss A held a party at her flat. One of her friends, "Monica", later told police that during the party Miss A had told her about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. 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."

Assange's supporters point out that, despite her complaints against him, Miss A held a party for him on that evening and continued to allow him to stay in her flat.

On Sunday 15 August, Monica told police, Miss A told her that she thought Assange had torn the condom on purpose. According to Monica, Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept" and she did not feel safe.

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A. However, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly stressed that he denies any kind of wrongdoing in relation to Miss W.

In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".

Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her. Miss W told police she went to a chemist to buy a morning-after pill and also went to hospital to be tested for STDs. Police statements record her contacting Assange to ask him to get a test and his refusing on the grounds that he did not have the time.

On Wednesday 18 August, according to police records, Miss A told Harold and a friend that Assange would not leave her flat and was sleeping in her bed, although she was not having sex with him and he spent most of the night sitting with his computer. Harold told police he had asked Assange why he was refusing to leave the flat and that Assange had said he was very surprised, because Miss A had not asked him to leave. Miss A says she spent Wednesday night on a mattress and then moved to a friend's flat so she did not have to be near him. She told police that Assange had continued to make sexual advances to her every day after they slept together and on Wednesday 18 August had approached her, naked from the waist down, and rubbed himself against her.

The accusations are not "sex without a condom".  They're four counts, ranging from violating the terms of consent (only consenting to sex with a condom), molestation, pinning down a subject in a sexual manner and trying to force sex, and having sex with a sleeping subject (again without a condom which the subject had made clear in their last encounter was a condition of consent - not that a sleeping individual can consent anyway).

When presented with the accusations, Assange immediately began insisting that the girls were some sort of "honeypot" and "dirty tricks" by the CIA.

The most troubling part of the story for me, however, is the main argument of his defense, and of many of his defenders on the internet: that the girls waited "days" before levying charges and only did so after talking with each other.  The standard argument goes something like, "You can't consider it to not be rape and then only change your mind after learning that he's sleeping with another girl!  Why, every guy would be a rapist."

Here's the problem with rape.  Very rarely is it a "guy jumps out of the bushes at you with a knife" sort of situation.  The situation is almost always complicated, foggy in one way or another.  And this makes it very difficult for victims not only to admit to others that it was rape, but even admit it to themselves.  You don't want to see yourself as a victim. You don't want to empower them as a victimizer.  When I told my story, another person told me how she actually started dating her rapist, just to make it not seem so much like rape.

It took me about three months before I could call what happened to me "rape".  Not "a bad night", not "an unwanted sexual experience", not "rape or something along those lines", not "I had some friends tell me I should call it rape" - just simply, rape.  

I won't go into detail, having already done so here.   I didn't fight or scream - just kept telling him no over and over while trying to protect my body and trying to leave when I thought I might have the chance, but never fought, never wanting to escalate an already bad situation.  I consented to other types of sexual activity in a bid to try to get him to stop trying to get inside of me and stop fingering me (he went back on his word, however).  I didn't immediately run as soon as he stopped.  Etc.  

Its these line-blurring things that make it very hard for you to go to the authorities.  It's these that make it hard for you to use that word: rape.  And there's always someone who's had it worse than you, and you don't want to diminish what happened to them by using the word for yourself.  I've known girls who've been raped at knifepoint.  That wasn't what happened to me, so I was very uncomfortable using the word for myself.

It seems like something that you can say, "It's in the past, it's over with" to.  Something you can just forget about, brush off and keep going with life.  It's only when confronted with evidence that it's actually affecting your life that you have to face it - freaking out when you're supposed to go out on a date or when you get a phone call with someone you don't recognize, hearing the guy's voice when others call your name with a similar accent, etc.

To act like the fact that these women didn't immediately scream rape to everyone who could hear them means that they weren't really raped is, as a consequence, extremely hurtful to me.  And I'm sure it's extremely hurtful to others as well.

I just wanted to add a personal element to this case.  Thank you for taking the time to read.

Originally posted to Rei on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:34 AM PDT.

Also republished by House of LIGHTS and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (198+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, kishik, ballerina X, matching mole, SwedishJewfish, Lisa Lockwood, angelajean, annieli, samanthab, white blitz, mconvente, stellaluna, SoCalSal, rosette, marleycat, katiekitteh, palantir, Cinnamon, palachia, Gator Keyfitz, CayceP, TFinSF, joe from Lowell, ctexrep, campionrules, EJP in Maine, erush1345, Tirge Caps, Transactivist, GoGoGoEverton, Deep Texan, Lorikeet, jiffypop, MKSinSA, Smoh, letsgetreal, stegro, LefseBlue, JayRaye, reginahny, furi kuri, Wee Mama, blue aardvark, litoralis, Denise Oliver Velez, gchaucer2, smash artist, vcmvo2, guppymoo, azrefugee, Quicklund, OllieGarkey, TooFolkGR, tommymet, Rogneid, Dauphin, Pozzo, Paul Ferguson, MGross, G2geek, blw, patchmo13, skohayes, Catte Nappe, Militarytracy, martydd, Matilda, edwardssl, ThatPoshGirl, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, doroma, dsb, nickrud, leftynyc, Railfan, koNko, auron renouille, Yamaneko2, zemblan, VexingEyes, Timaeus, SoCaliana, OIL GUY, philimus, thomask, AaronInSanDiego, Zornorph, PapaChach, Balto, Tuscarora, terjeanderson, pimutant, idbecrazyif, tobendaro, filby, slowbutsure, StateOfGrace, GAS, jan4insight, a gilas girl, Avilyn, IndieGuy, Unduna, sobermom, klompendanser, eve, pvlb, Tonatzin, ParkRanger, yellowdog, Mannie, HudsonValleyMark, northsylvania, bill warnick, Kinak, democracy is coming, mungley, Drama Queen, Hanahbatruth, bakeneko, rb608, Ellid, redlum jak, Drewid, Kingsmeg, Alice Venturi, ceebs, oortdust, doingbusinessas, antimony, jarbyus, FG, stormicats, Prairie D, Mindful Nature, kml, Boris Godunov, MNGlasnant, Thinking Fella, JanetT in MD, wordene, Korkenzieher, Knucklehead, Renee, rockhound, Observerinvancouver, kempsternyc, petulans, puakev, Remembering Jello, Ginny in CO, Liberal Mole, Carol in San Antonio, Eclectablog, BlueOak, wasatch, sviscusi, eru, susans, Matt Z, Xapulin, Mistral Wind, sebastianguy99, Statusquomustgo, tardis10, PeterHug, Gay CA Democrat, ZedMont, operculum, sarahnity, Empty Vessel, xynz, Louisiana 1976, Chinton, Tamar, alnep, Corvinus, KenBee, kirbybruno, FishOutofWater, nsfbr, Friendlystranger, cfm, LSophia, Quite Contrary, Larsstephens, flhiii88, 714day, science nerd, Lawrence, sideboth, rl en france, Deep Dark, Stripe, Gareth, rodentrancher, jhop7, caul
  •  That makes everyone Sweden's pawn, though (41+ / 0-)

    The provision that Sweden won't charge someone unless they're in the country seems incompatible with a compulsory process like extradition--you're extraditing someone who hasn't been charged.  This kind of catch-22 happens all the time and in democratic societies it's typically resolved, however grumblingly, in favor of the accused.

    What Assange is accused of doesn't seem especially out of character from what we know about him--he's some kind of narcissist--but the idea that you can be extradited someplace because the local authorities would like to see if there are sufficient grounds to charge you strikes me as bizarre, and that's without getting into issues of timing and proportionality that others have raised and which don't seem entirely frivolous.

    Romney '12: Bully for America!

    by Rich in PA on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:04:33 AM PDT

    •  The UK, in reviewing the extradition decision, (42+ / 0-)

      found that there was sufficient evidence for Assange to be charged with rape even in the UK had the crime been committed there.  If that's not enough, I don't know what could be.

      The Swedish law exists out of a sense of fairness, not unfairness - the right of any individual to face and respond to their questioners before being charged, and to not be held in limbo for a long period of time between being questioned and being charged.  

      •  Millions, probably billions of people (19+ / 0-)

        experience difficult situations related to sex. The overwhelming majority of us do not feel the need to see those responsible for the less than perfectly agreeable sex we had punished. Rape, where one individual, typically a man (though not necessarily always) uses physical force against another individual, usually a woman (though far from always) to have sex against their will, is certainly an act that requires the removal of the offender from society. Personally I am not against the death penalty for the crime, but that is a discussion for another time. What Assange is accused of doing does not seem like "rape" under that kind of definition. Could he have done something wrong? Of course. Did he do anything wrong? Could be, though it seems like there will never be any way of truly knowing, unless some video or tape should perhaps arise. To me though, here's a way to try and analogize the situation: You may not raise your hand up and slap your neighbor without being afoul of the Law. Nor may you raise your hand against your neighbor in a threatening manner without running afoul of the Law, even if you do not strike your neighbor. The one act is battery, and the other assault. The Law makes it possible to charge the individual  with assault. But more often than not, a sort of no-harm-no-foul reality lets the assaulted party feeling free from the need to see their near-assailant prosecuted.

        Wrong is wrong. But their are clearly degrees of harm and consequence. Assange is being politically persecuted. The UK??? Yeah, they would never play ball with the US secret keepers. This man does not seem like someone going around the planet stalking and raping women, regardless of what may have happened over a few weeks of women having, apparently, mostly consensual sex, at their place, with a man they were not seemingly asking to leave. ?? I just don't see the desire to see Assange punished as anything but schadenfreude and other unfortunate psychology. I'm sorry. It's a good issue, and you write about it well, imo. But having an opinion in favor of the potential extradition of this person, given his history, and given the nature of these rather not extreme charges (if not far from extreme) seems really misguided.

        "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

        by The House on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:52:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not an accurate definition (35+ / 0-)
          Rape, where one individual, typically a man (though not necessarily always) uses physical force against another individual, usually a woman (though far from always) to have sex against their will,
          Rape is a whole lot of other things besides physical force. Rape is about the violation of consent, whether physical force is used or not (which, btw, is alleged in the complaint), even if some consensual activity has been initiated.  Consent is also revokable.  And when you continue sexual activity without consent, whether it's violent or not, it's rape.
          •  But this is the problem with the diary (53+ / 0-)

            And those who make the diarist's claim generally.  As I posted in yesterday's "Assange thread":

            So you get to assert the "facts" as you see them from the perspective of the women involved, but those who wish to refute them or introduce other explanatory factors  are not allowed to do so without being labeled as "rape apologists", "chauvinists", etc. by people like you.

            That cannot persist.  Either you have to stop asserting that what you THINK happened ACTUALLY happened, or you have to allow others to refute your "facts" without denigrating them as victim abusers.

            Which is it?

            This diary is a perfect example.  The diarist posts the claims of the accusers, pretty much verbatim, in all their sordid details.  I have no problem whatsoever with this, as any rational person seeking to weigh in on the issue MUST consider the claims being leveled against Assange by his accusers.  Fine.

            But my problem then comes in the diarist's attempt to effectively denigrate opposing viewpoints and other explanatory factors by implying that holding such opinions are "abusive of the victims".   If we say that a rational mind weighing in on the issue must consider the accusations against Assange, then SO TOO must that rational mind consider Assange's defenses - be they directly in contradiction of the women's claims, or be they other factors such as his claim of U.S. pre-text.  To do so is not at all abusive of anybody, but is, in fact how a non-partisan observer MUST approach the issue.

            We don't know who the victims truly are in this affair.  It may be the women accusing Assange, OR it may Assange himself if he is being falsely accused.  Just as rape victims (often women) are often quite unjustly ignored or brushed aside by authorities and the public, so too are people (often men) falsely accused of sexual assaults that they didn't commit.

            As David points out above, the discussion should only focus on the legal process.  Nobody knows or can know what truly happened between Assange and his accusers.   And as far as the process goes, I simply cannot understand:

            1) Why Assange could not have been first questioned in person by a Swedish prosecutor in England.   If Swedish law requires that he be present in Sweden before he is charged - fine.  But the prosecutor has stated that Assange is wanted for QUESTIONING, not to be charged.  And while the substance of the CLAIMS against Assange may be sufficient to charge him, then the prosecutor needs to say that this is her goal - to charge Assange - not simply state that she wants to question him.  Questioning can be done anywhere in the world.

            2) Why can't Sweden very publicly say, or perhaps even make a plea agreement of some sort in which they unequivocally state that they will refuse to extradite Assange to any other country in the world, particularly the U.S.?  Why can't they simply make this assurance?  Whether or not Assange would trust those assurances is one thing - but the fact that they haven't even been made in light of Assange's very public concerns regarding U.S. extradition is troubling to me.

            •  You make a good point. Assange's supporters are (38+ / 0-)

              hardly the only ones making a judgement here. There are plenty of people willing to brand him a rapist or a molester based purely on allegations, apparently because of their strong feelings on the subject.

              At this point, we can't say what really happened. But that isn't really the source of the controversy. The real problem here is distrust of the system itself.

              I'm sure most people would be perfectly fine with Assange being extradited if there was no doubt about an ulterior motive, but sadly that isn't the case.

              This is the consequence of the U.S. and other governments perverting the legal system and riding roughshod over civil rights in the name of national security. We've now reached the point where many people don't believe someone like Assange will be treated fairly by the legal system itself, and that obviously muddies any discussion of these issues greatly.

              •  That's why you have a trial (13+ / 0-)

                To weigh the facts as put forward by the accuser against the defense. Why is that so hard to understand?

                So, every time someone you consider "progressive" is accused of rape, he should get a walk?

                I'm with the diarist. The views here remind me of sports fans defending Kobe Bryant or Mike Tyson. It all boils down to:
                1) she's making it up
                2) it's her fault

                Nut and slut. Nothing new here.

                •  The problem is that when the government (30+ / 0-)

                  claims the right to hold you indefinitely, ship you to third world countries to torture out a confession, and keep you in solitary confinement for months on end in inhumane conditions (all acts our government now engages in), the idea of having a trial "to weigh the facts" becomes somewhat farcical.

                  •  Agreed, only not so much farcical as scary as shit (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    for 6 too, rhetoricus

                    "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

                    by The House on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:00:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  And that (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cris0000, 4kedtongue

                    is the nub of the matter. The US, and to some degree its allies and supporters are steadily losing their right to the assumption of innocence on their part, to the assumption that due process will be followed and, without prejudice, without ulterior motive, informs that process.

                    THIS, along with Assad's use of "terrorists" who are not terrorists, with those who torture and throw back in the west's face any charges that it is unacceptable, is the true cost of the Bush years.

                    We, none of us I suspect, trust our governments any more. The scale of that distrust varies but once the rot has started, even if in practise it is reversed, the trust has gone. And, assuming that Assange's accusers are right, they too are being punished for that loss of Trust.

                    Until inauguration day The USA is in the greatest danger it has ever experienced.

                    by Deep Dark on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 03:21:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Assange has been given due process. (0+ / 0-)

                      Which he exercised to contest the matter, and now he is exercising another legal process in seeking asylum.

                      So far the system is working.

                      Unless and until he is subject to an extra-legal process, what we have is much speculation.

                      What about my Daughter's future?

                      by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 04:36:13 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  But that is not the case at all. (0+ / 0-)

                    Sweden sought his extradition for questioning (he has not been charged) using the legal process to do so and Assange has used the same legal process to contest it (incidentally prolonging the process).

                    And while the case has proceeded, Assange has not been incarcerated, but free OR with the provision he remain in the UK for the duration, which he complied with.

                    Now he stands in contempt of the UK court ruing, however, he is exercising another of his legal rights under International Law to seek political asylum, which may or may not be granted.

                    Which is all as it should be:

                    - Rule of Law
                    - Due Process
                    - No One Above the Law

                    Unless you disagree with any of the above principles.

                    Whether or not the US would seek his extradition on other charges at a later date is speculative at this point and, regardless, would be an entirely different matter.

                    But so far, the US has not sought his extradition from the UK, correct?

                    What about my Daughter's future?

                    by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 04:32:33 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  What does that have to do with Assange? (0+ / 0-)

                    So far he has done fine in court and using the law. Indeed, his present request for political asylum would be based on international law.

                    To my knowledge, he has been hosted in affluence and comfort while his lawyers have pursued his case up to the UK Supreme Court as this plays out to an international audiance.

                    Far cry from "torture in a third world country".

                    Were that the case, we would not know about it, we would not be discussing it, and he would not be smiling for the cameras.

                    What about my Daughter's future?

                    by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:42:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sure, but once he gets placed in U.S. (0+ / 0-)

                      custody, there may be no remedies at all.

                      This isn't such a hypothetical fear. Holder has said he has "authorized significant actions" in the criminal investigation into WikiLeaks. There is a grand jury in Virginia to potentially brings charges. The vice president of the U.S. has labelled him a terrorist.

                      Why would you expect him to wait until the point of no return to protect himself?

                      •  It's pretty clear (0+ / 0-)

                        The US is ignoring him and will continue to do so. Wikileaks is pretty-much dead and so, for the US Government, mission accomplished.

                        Frankly speaking, Assange's case has turned into a distracting, diversionary side-show that is more about him and his fans than the issues wikileaks whistle-blowers uncovered or productive political change.

                        But if you like, read and reply to my comments here and here, which address the issue of Assange, extra-judcial kidnapping, and the difference between Assange and Bradley Manning.

                        What about my Daughter's future?

                        by koNko on Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 03:37:15 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  The charges against Kobe Bryant were (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  for 6 too

                  dropped.

                  We're not talking about the OJ case.  There's no mountain of evidence pointing to his guilt, despite the verdict.

                  What do you think the bar is?  At what point does it become possible that a person accused of rape may not be guilty?

                  Those who refer to the "victims" rather than the "alleged victims" remind me of those who decided the guilt of the entire Duke LaCrosse team the second they read the headline.

                  Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                  by JesseCW on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:43:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  There are plenty of people here who would love to (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cris0000

                see Assange hang for publishing documents that our government finds embarrassing, and will take whatever retribution comes along. The diarist has found a wedge issue and is exploiting it beautifully to divide the community.

                I quit school very young, and never learned how to believe things just because I was told to.

                by socalmonk on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:53:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't think so (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SwedishJewfish

                  Rather, she posted a subject for debate and even included a warning to the effect that she expected the issue to be controversial and might displease some, which is reasonable.

                  If the community is divided in opinion, then we simply have a debate.

                  But some might interpret your comment as exploiting an opportunity to drive a wedge between the diarist and the community since you put it that way - the thought had not occurred to me until you raised it.

                  Is there something in the site rules that prohibits posting on current events and expressing opinions others might disagree with? For God/whomever's sake, if that is the case, please report it to Markos - or ban him.

                  What about my Daughter's future?

                  by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 04:56:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Not really. (0+ / 0-)

                See my response to the user's comment, it is actually quite mistaken in terms of legal process.

                And certainly some Assange partisans here are making judgements (simply matters of opinion, that's OK), and quite a few more making very broad assumptions and jumping to conclusions before the facts.

                If the subject was 9-11, we would have a bunch of banned users here on the basis of CT.

                What about my Daughter's future?

                by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 04:06:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The point of the questioning is to charge him. (14+ / 0-)

              So saying "But the prosecutor has stated that Assange is wanted for QUESTIONING, not to be charged. " is irrelevant.  They want to charge him, they can't do it outside of Sweden, hence he has to come back to Sweden, and everything that has transpired follows from there.  The British courts clearly have no trouble udnerstanding this concept.

              And yes, concerning "abusive of the victims", telling people that are saying that they were raped by someone that they're lying because they didn't do it right away is a horrible thing to do to someone.

              Nobody on this site, as far as I know, is saying that Assange should be convicted without a trial.  What we are saying is that he should not get to escape a trial.

              As for re-extradition, that requires consent of the initiating country (article is in Swedish; you can use Google Translate), aka, the UK.

              •  Response: (19+ / 0-)

                1)  This is Swedish law as I understand it to the best of my ability:  judges don't issue arrest warrants or command the presence of the accused before a court to answer charges - prosecutors do.  And in order to avoid the inherent unfairness of a system whereby the same person who will be seeking to prosecute a crime in court is the very same person who investigates it and determines whether charges should be brought, Swedish law requires prosecutors to remain impartial and non-adversarial about the possibility of charges until the accuser and accused can be questioned and the situation fully investigated.

                Therefore, if it is true that the prosecutor has already decided to charge Assange before completing questioning, then this prosecutor would be acting illegally and in an inherently unfair manner towards Assange - again according to the Swedish criminal system.

                So my point stands.  Why couldn't the prosecutor have first questioned Assange in England?  He may be able to provide exculpatory evidence of the like which would remove the need to charge him at all.  Again, the fact that this hasn't happened when it so easily could is troubling.

                2) Anybody on Kos who flat out says that the women are lying should be rebuffed and refuted very easily and in a way which doesn't implicate anybody else who may find Assange's defense credible.  Simply point out that NOBODY can know what in fact did or did not happen and that ANYBODY who makes any unequivocal claims of fact is an idiot.  Why the need to imply - as your diary title clearly does - that those who may consider Assange's viewpoint persuasive as "victim abusers"?  Why use the word "victim" at all in this diary?  You (nor anybody else) have no idea who the real victims are!  Your use of the word "victim" is just as much an unsupported, unequivocal statement of fact as those who flat out say that the women are lying.  Don't you see that?

                3)  The fact that the UK must provide consent for re-extradition is irrelevant.  From Assange's perspective, that affords him as little protection as simply going to Sweden in the first place.  Do you really think that the UK would provide a substantive barrier to any U.S. desire to have him face charges here?  Of course not!  In fact, recent events involving UK citizens accused of piracy by the U.S. show that the UK doesn't even effectively protect it's OWN CITIZENS against U.S. extradition.

                Again, if Sweden wanted to quell Assange's talk of extradition to the U.S. why not unequivocally offer him a guarantee of some sort that he will not be extradited to the U.S.   PERIOD.  End of discussion.   Again, he may not trust it - but the fact that it hasn't even been offered is troubling.  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it could not have been offered by Swedish authorities.

                •  Your third argument is self-defeating. (5+ / 0-)

                  You're saying the UK provides him no defense.  He's in the UK.  Hence he already has no defense, hence whether or not he goes to Sweden is irrelevant concerning the US.

                  Why use the word "victim" at all in this diary?
                  Because that's the one side of the story people here have been neglecting.
                  Therefore, if it is true that the prosecutor has already decided to charge Assange before completing questioning, then this prosecutor would be acting illegally and in an inherently unfair manner towards Assange - again according to the Swedish criminal system.  So my point stands.  Why couldn't the prosecutor have first questioned Assange in England?
                  He's already been questioned once in Sweden and statements have been taken by all parties, as well as other records collected (phone, text, etc).  The preponderence of evidence was not merely enough to convince the Swedish prosecutor but the UK trial reviewing his case of its merit.  I don't know how much higher of a standard a person could want for completing the steps needed to file charges than that.
                  •  people who think (9+ / 0-)

                    the the UK courts are somehow tying themselves in knots to allow the extradition of Assange need to read the following article

                    Blog | Jack of Kent

                    Many people appear to confidently believe that the rape allegation in Sweden against Julian Assange would not be an allegation of rape under English law.

                     

                    Assange’s legal team argued this point at both the Magistrates’ Court and on appeal at the High Court.  Ther submission was that “Offence 4″ (the fourth of the four alleged offences).  Offence 4 is staed as follows:

                    The Magistrates court in their judgement said that what he is being charged with is rape under English law, the High court then specifically agreed with the judgement

                    Blog | Jack of Kent

                    The High Courtdecided the appeal on the same point:

                    It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did.

                     

                    (See paragaphs 122 to 127 of the judgment for context.)

                    The case has since been to the UK supreme court, that could not see any flaws in the technical legality of what has been done. The High court ruling and argument is publicly available on the internet, and The Supreme court case was was held in public view over the internet, and its arguments are published too.

                    The UK has a very strong human rights law bodies, and I am yet to see any UK human rights lawyers arguing that he shouldn't be extradited to Sweden.

                    Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

                    by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  If all the steps have been completed to file (6+ / 0-)

                    charges...

                    Why haven't charges been filed then?

                    A Swedish prosecutor voided a warrant for the arrest of Assange, but someone somewhere somehow got another prosecutor to reissue a warrant.

                    The man has been chased halfway around the world, had an INTERPOL warrant issued for his arrest and locked into solitary confinement and had his tooth deliberately knocked out (and confiscated for DNA testing) and he has been shackled and locked into house confinement for almost two years now.

                    All for sexual assault (not rape) for a broken condom and unlawful coercion and molestation (for pressing his erect penis against one of the women the next morning after they had had consensual sex all night) and those are misdemeanors under Swedish law. AND even IF he were to ever be found guilty of rape in the first degree... or whatever you want to sledgehammer him with... the jail time most likely would NOT remotely be longer than the time he has already served under arrest.


                    In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                    by bronte17 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:19:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  hardly (9+ / 0-)
                      shackled and locked into house confinement for almost two years now.
                      He's had a nighttime curfew, and has had to be at a specific address from nine in the evening till 7 in the morning every day

                      Claims that he's been shackled and under house arrest are laughable

                      Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

                      by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:25:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What is the word... tagged? It's still shackled (8+ / 0-)

                        to government control and under police surveillance.

                        And it has been almost two years now that Assange has been stalked and arrested and confined for actions that have not even resulted in charges. And if ever the charges are brought... and IF he is found guilty there will be a fine. These are misdemeanors in Swedish law.

                        Finally, Sweden has a record of turning people over to the US for extradiction where they would up in Egyptian torture chambers.

                        And that was for just for some low-level "terrorists" who really were NOT... oops!.... terrorists.

                        What do you think the US military has in store for Assange once they get their hands on him?


                        In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                        by bronte17 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:33:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  it's been two years (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ginny in CO, sarahnity

                          because he has used every possible legal maneuver to avoid going to Sweden, arguing that he's been  held for two years when it has been through his own choice really is somewhat  ridiculous.

                          handing people over to the US is maybe doable, if it's done secretly, but Asange is rather too high profile to do that with.

                          And the idea that all of the Charges are Misdemenours in Swedish law is frankly untrue from reading the UK court papers. Charge four is most definitely rape, and most definitely isn't a misdemenour in any juristiction.

                          Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

                          by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:40:03 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If you bothered reading through the history (9+ / 0-)

                            of this case, you would see that Julian Assange did indeed cooperate with Swedish prosecutors while Assange was still there. But, he only visited Sweden for a few days... he doesn't live there and he doesn't have permanent facilities.

                            And the "rape charges" were not officially set up as they are now. Furthermore, the incidents were not "rape" in the loaded sense of the word, but rather coercion and molestation (for letting his erect penis touch a woman with whom he had had consensual sex) and the condom breakage stuff.

                            A Swedish prosecutor examined these charges and dismissed them. But, a conservative newspaper picked up the story and illegally ran the information and slandered Assange all over the news. Another prosecutor then picked up the case and worked the hell out of it to get the results they wanted.... so they could then pursue Assange.

                            And if you read through the Swedish prosecutor's information, you would find that the odds are extremely remote that a man is persecuted TWICE for these specific incidents.

                            Finally, no one has heard Julian's side of the story either. After two long years... it has been in the US military's interests to slander Assange's name with rape and establish that in the public mind.


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:58:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so what were his lawyers (0+ / 0-)

                            presenting in the UK courts? if it's not his side of the story?

                            Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

                            by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:52:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You seem to be very involved with Murdoch (5+ / 0-)

                            and understand the legalities of that twisting saga.

                            Why is it that you cannot apply that same logic to this case?

                            Assange did NOT argue his case of consensual sex for a few days while he visited Sweden before the UK courts. What was argued and at issue were the EU and UK and Swedish sovereignty rights and shared boundaries in their legal systems. The European Commission on Human Rights within the EU borders... and the violation of the Convention by many EU nations.


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:30:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thats's why (0+ / 0-)

                            do i not apply the same logic and come to the same  conclusion as you really isn't it.

                            Well I've been and read and digested, and I just don't think it makes sense in the way that you do.

                            I think that the whole situation  has changed from being about Wikileaks to about Asange, and that may have been the intention of the state actors who wished to bring it down. Wikileaks has gone mainly from releasing important documents to supporting Assange as being the focus of its supporters existence, and that is something that we are unbarably poorer because of.

                            Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

                            by ceebs on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 02:26:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well... that last paragraph is a great analogy (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            4kedtongue

                            and just an excellent summation of the situation.

                            And it's truly awful the provocateurs have been so successful in establishing this divisiveness amongst us.


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 04:26:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Isn't it. (0+ / 0-)

                            Except for your own comments and opinions, of course, since you speak for all Daily Kos members, right?

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:07:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And why is this nastiness necessary from you? (0+ / 0-)

                            At what point in this diary did I ever once say that my comments "spoke for all Daily Kos members?"

                            There's no doubt that when I do wade into a verbal moshpit that I do so vigorously. But, those are my opinions from my analyses... sometimes educated, sometimes just chit chat. But, always my own opinion.

                            So, why do you presume to say such things? What is your point and what precisely do you hope to accomplish?


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:39:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •   . . . (0+ / 0-)
                            And it's truly awful the provocateurs have been so successful in establishing this divisiveness amongst us.
                            /nfc

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:57:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah... you complain because I agreed with ceebs? (0+ / 0-)

                            and attempted to coordinate that agreement into a respectful comment?

                            You stepped in and decided to make an issue out of that?

                            From ceebs:

                            I think that the whole situation  has changed from being about Wikileaks to about Asange, and that may have been the intention of the state actors who wished to bring it down. Wikileaks has gone mainly from releasing important documents to supporting Assange as being the focus of its supporters existence, and that is something that we are unbarably poorer because of.
                            That was just an outstanding comment from ceebs and you want to make a stink out of my response to ceebs to say so?


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:46:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I'm not like that (0+ / 0-)

                            What I reacted to were the accusations from you and another that because the Diarist and some writers disagree with your viewpoint they are being divisive and trying to harm the community.

                            That is absolute crappy reasoning and you know it.

                            I do happen to agree, somewhat, with the ceebs quite you cite above, but it is neither here or there to what I post.

                            I don't hang out in cliques or play favorites here. I don't HR comments or call for others to be banned. I don't accuse people of bad intentions simply because I disagree with them.

                            I speak for myself and assume others do as well.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 04:10:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, you totally discount the two vile comparisons (0+ / 0-)

                            at the very beginning of the diary... comparing Assange to a murderous vile man and then to John Edwards?

                            In what remote capacity does Assange relate to those men? What excuse can you possibly reach for to defend that horrible setup of poisoning people's minds with associating Assange with murder?

                            And because that horrible intentional analogy was unleashed upon this community and I (and others) slapped it down... you have the audacity to claim that is "crappy reasoning?"

                            Now, you may believe the ugliness of leading out a diary with such ugly false association is not "intentional." That's your opinion. I don't agree and it is fully legitimate to make a structured argument that says so.


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 04:49:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree that was a bit over the top (0+ / 0-)

                            But I think the point was that people can do some good things and also very bad things, which is a valid point that might apply here.

                            I'm not sure if the comparison to Edwards is so far-fetched, Assange has a record of taking advantage of his celebrity with women, such as the case in Sweden, where regardless of how one might view the "rape" accusations, it certainly suggests he's inclined to use women.

                            My advice to Assange and Edwards would be to practice a bit more politeness, respect and consideration, and to use a condom.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:27:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What? (0+ / 0-)
                            Finally, no one has heard Julian's side of the story either.
                            At the very least we have heard his denials and the aspirations he cast toward the women in question.

                            If he has not said more it is surely his choice or on advice of his lawyers (I suppose the latter).

                            And note this: Sweden seeks his extradition for questioning, i.e., to hear his side of the story.

                            Where it goes from there, if it goes from there, remains to be seen and comments projecting an outcome are purely speculative.

                            Of course, you are free to speculate as much as you wish.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:06:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If YOU knew what you were talking about (0+ / 0-)

                            For ONCE, you wouldn't have said

                            If you bothered reading through the history of this case, you would see that Julian Assange did indeed cooperate with Swedish prosecutors while Assange was still there. But, he only visited Sweden for a few days... he doesn't live there and he doesn't have permanent facilities.
                            That paragraph has at least 3 major falsehoods.

                            He had submitted an application to live permanently in Sweden! He DID want to live there.

                            He was questioned once, and then when another prosecutor determined that the first one rejected charges in error, he REFUSED TO COOPERATE! Saying that he cooperated is dishonest. Cooperating for a short period of time isn't equivalent to cooperating. He left the country to avoid cooperating further, when he had just recently submitted the request to become a permanent resident alien, and he committed to come directly back to Sweden to answer questions - but apparently he had no intention of going back there after he successfully avoided answering ANY follow-up questions.

                            He wasn't simply visiting there. He was intending to live there until he was suspected of sexual assault, and rather than face the music, he fled the country.

                            That's what people who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT know about this case. And yet again, that wouldn't be YOU.

                        •  He will probably have his head on a pike... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          for 6 too

                          ...in the Charlotte offices of Bank of America if that happens.

                          9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

                          by varro on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:45:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Did you not read? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ginny in CO, Rei, sarahnity

                      He hasn't been charged because Swedish law won't let charges be filed until he's on Swedish soil.  That is the one and only hang up here.

                      •  No...he hasn't been charged because (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DaleA, bronte17, JesseCW, for 6 too

                        presumably, the Swedish prosecutor has not yet decided to charge him.  In fact, she legally CANNOT decide to charge him until she performs a full investigation which, she apparently believes, requires questioning him a second time.  This has always been her only request - to have him appear for questioning.

                        Not once has the prosecutor said that she wants Assange sent to Sweden to be charged.

                        What I can't understand and has never been sufficiently answered, is why that questioning could not have taken place in England.

                        •  There's a link to the fact that he has to (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sarahnity, Unit Zero

                          be in Sweden before he can be charged, right in the diary, right in a prominent location.  Are the people who keep saying this not actually reading the diary they're commenting on?

                          •  *Sigh.* (7+ / 0-)

                            You find me one - just one measly quote, cite, passage, whatever - in which Marianne Ny, the prosecutor who reopened the investigation has once stated that she wants Assange in Sweden so he can be charged.  Just one.  You won't find it.

                            She has not, and in fact CANNOT say this, because she wants to question him further.  Under Swedish law she must remain impartial until she completes her investigation.   If she were to announce that she wants to charge him BEFORE concluding her investigation, she would be admitting that she would be violating Swedish criminal procedure in a way which obviously prejudices Assange.

                            So stop saying that the only reason that Assange hasn't been charged is because he isn't in Sweden.  He hasn't been charged because the prosecutor hasn't completed her investigation and BY SWEDISH LAW, she must be non-adversarial and impartial until she finishes the preliminary investigation.

                            For all we know, he may well end up in Sweden, be questioned, and then the prosecutor finds that the accusations are not worthy of prosecution.  Again, the fact is that this questioning COULD easily have taken place by having Ms. Ny go to England to question Assange but has not occurred is suspicious.

                          •  That might be a point of law too. (0+ / 0-)

                            Does she have jurisdiction to question Assange outside of Sweden in a criminal case investigation?

                            Sometimes different rules apply in civil verses criminal matters.

                            I honestly don't know but wonder if that is the case here.

                            I would agree that if she has that option it raises a question.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:28:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  I did. (0+ / 0-)

                        He has not be charged and the extradition seeks his return for questioning, something I have stated here ad nausea - did you not read?

                        One possible outcome if he is extradited is he would be questioned and then charged. Or not.

                        It is actually quite common that people are sought for questioning as part of an investigation process, which usually precedes indictment if that is the outcome.

                        In fact, it is usually the preferred process.

                        What about my Daughter's future?

                        by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:22:33 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Not at all it isn't. (10+ / 0-)

                    1) Not at all.  You're completely ignoring political implications of a UK transfer of Assange to the U.S. at this point.  UK authorities have a lot less to lose politically from merely agreeing to a Swedish - U.S. extradition than from a direct UK to U.S. extradition.  Assange has committed no crime in the UK.  They have no basis whatsoever to even be holding him but for his charges in Sweden.  Therefore, if the U.S. were to announce Assange's charges and seek his extradition from the UK while he's in UK custody, it would put the UK in a politically uncomfortable decision:  choose between sending Assange to Sweden or the U.S.

                    Considering the widespread view already present among the UK public that their government serves as nothing more than a lackey for U.S. hegemonic policy,  both UK authorities likely don't want to be put in that position - and have let U.S. authorities know that.

                    2)

                    Because that's the one side of the story people here have been neglecting.
                    Shouldn't you say "accusers" as opposed to "victims"?  We can consider their side of the story without referring to them as victims quite yet.  To do othwerwise is to make an unsupported statement of fact - that Assange's accusers are, in fact, victims.  Do you really not see my point here?

                    3) You yourself said in yesterday's thread that the fact that Assange has already been questioned once isn't dispositive on the issue.  That prosecutors change their minds.  And the fact of the matter is that the prosecutor wants more questioning!  Period.   And if that's the case, then by Swedish law, she CANNOT have already made a decision about charges without violating her requirement to remain impartial while investigating.

                  •  This isn't quite true, is it? (10+ / 0-)

                    When Assange was first questioned, the Prosecutor laid no charges, released him and he was free to leave the country.

                    That, apparently, didn't suit someone and a second Prosecutor from a different city was wheeled in to re-open the investigation.

                    I make no comment on the merits of the criminal investigation, other than to say that it is very hard to escape the conclusion that it is politically motivated.

                    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                    by twigg on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:39:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Perhaps it didn't suit Ms A (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ginny in CO, SwedishJewfish, Rei

                      I am still quite suprised by so many kossacks taking a leaf out of the Jerry Sandusky Defenders Club Manual.   (not you, twigg, necessarily!)

                      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                      by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:00:35 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I told another Kossack (8+ / 0-)

                        who I respect deeply, that comparisons with Sandusky are invalid, and serve only to raise the temperature of the debate.

                        I am reading the comment thread and I am surprised at how this debate has been framed as a "rapist getting away with it"

                        Personally I think anyone suggesting that Assange return to Sweden, to demonstrate his innocence, is naive beyond belief.

                        Also, he is innocent until proven guilty, and the women are not victims, they are accusers.

                        They key to this is simply that the Swedish Government had to go "Prosecutor Shopping" to get the investigation re-opened. The original Prosecutor freed him unconditionally.

                        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                        by twigg on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:01:47 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  isn't that suspicious? (0+ / 0-)

                          especially since the UK agrees that the charges have enough merit to proceed? Who got to the first prosecutor, that's what I want to know.

                          /snark, but it is about as valid as simply claiming the swedish gov went prosecutor shopping.

                          Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                          by nickrud on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:31:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Not really. (3+ / 0-)

                            The burden of evidence required for extradition is very low ... Indeed, for extradition to the US it is zero. In the main it is simply a matter of checking that the paperwork is in order because the UK Courts work on the presumption that the accused will get a fair trial, especially in a country like Sweden.

                            It's not out of the question that the UK Courts have been pressurised by their own government to simply hand this horrible mess to Sweden to deal with.

                            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                            by twigg on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:49:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm having a bit of a cognitive (0+ / 0-)

                            disconnect between your statement that "it is simply a matter of checking that the paperwork is in order because the UK Courts work on the presumption that the accused will get a fair trial, especially in a country like Sweden" vs. the actual events in England. Such as appealing all the way to the British High Court.

                            Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                            by nickrud on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 01:43:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  There is no restriction (0+ / 0-)

                      On the number of interviews that can be pursued in an investigation and quite often there are multiple instances as a case develops.

                      The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from his release after the first interview (which was in an early stage) was that at that point they did not find cause to hold him.

                      By the way, there is much speculation here that he is being sought so he can be turned over to the US once in Sweden, but apparently that would be a violation of Swedish law, i.e., an extradition order applied to one case cannot be used for another.

                      Investigations are, by nature, fishing expeditions, no?

                      If there are no fish or they aren't biting, then at least you get to dress funny and drink some beer!

                      Photobucket

                       And then tell stories about "the one that got away".

                      Photobucket

                      What about my Daughter's future?

                      by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:42:32 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  no, it isn't. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    for 6 too
                    Because that's the one side of the story people here have been neglecting.
                    however, there is no "victim" at the moment, what there is, is an alleged "victim", since there's been no trial and conviction. this is a critical difference: your use of the term "victim" makes it a statement of fact. since that has yet to be established by trial, it's wrong on its face. "alleged victim" is the correct term to use, in a case where we only have allegations, yet to be tried. this has bothered me since this all came out, not that it's mr. assange (who i'd never heard of until the whole wikileaks thing came out), it would apply to anyone thusly accused.

                    this isn't to say that the woman isn't a victim of rape (i have no idea if she is or isn't, since i wasn't there), simply that her allegations have yet to be tried in open court. if he did rape her, then he should be punished accordingly, regardless of who he is.

                    one other thing bothered me:

                    yes, they can:

                    "They should just accept his offer to chat via Skype.": Suspects cannot dictate the terms of their questioning, a "skype interview" isn't at all like an actual police questioning, and as above, he can't be charged remotely.
                    since he hasn't been charged with anything, he's under no obligation whatever to accede to requests that he "go with the nice officers to the police station for questioning". in fact, any decent lawyer would advise him to stay as far away from a police station as he can. if they want to question him badly enough, they can do it by phone. apparently, they don't want to question him that badly, which makes me wonder just how strong a case they think they have at the moment.

                    i'm not generally a conspiracy nut, but i can kind of understand how some people would think it odd that, just as the US is trying to latch on to mr. assange, because of the leaked documents, this woman comes out of nowhere, and kind of sort of makes a complaint against him, for something that happened weeks before. most likely it is purely coicidental (as you noted, rape is a difficult crime to report, for multiple reasons), and it just took her that long to work up the courage to file the complaint. that it began as a consensual act probably didn't help matters any, as she probably felt (and rightfully so) it would make the police less than enthusiastic about pursuing it.

                    rape is a horrible crime, possibly the most horrible crime. those convicted of committing it should be locked away, and the victims given all possible help to recover. but, the law should be followed, regardless of how odious we find the alleged perpetrators to be.

              •  The two women involved did NOT even file rape (14+ / 0-)

                charges against Assange. They simply wanted him to have a STD test done. That was their request.

                And the original charges are misdemeanors in Sweden and carry a fine if Assange is ever found guilty... and at this point in time no charges whatsoever have been filed against Assange.

                And your diary is a horrible setup... I don't know who you are or what the angle is... but you set up the beginning of this diary with an introduction of a horrible slaughtering man who murdered his wife. You introduced that parallel to Assange into reader's minds. Then you insert the cheating John Edwards whose behavior tormented his dying wife. Another horrible example to insert into people's minds.

                Then you go for the jugular against Assange. As if Julian Assange has anything whatsoever in common with those two examples that you used to set up your diary theme.

                Finally, it is unconscionable and extremely naive for you to rail against the fact that this case is one of political retribution and there is no doubt whatsoever (and proof to back it up) that the US has initiated and established the framework to extradict Assange the moment they can get their hands on him.


                In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                by bronte17 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:59:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Charge number four (6+ / 0-)

                  is most definitely not a misdemanour and is most definitely rape, under any legality (as the UK high court said)

                  Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

                  by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:27:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The woman did not file charges against Assange (11+ / 0-)

                    She asked that he be tested for sexually transmitted diseases after she found out he had slept with another woman. A woman who BTW made tweets and online comments about "how to" destroy men by falsely charging them with rape.

                    And that "charge" has not been filed officially. Nor have you or anyone else heard the other side of the story from Assange.

                    This diary is a hit piece. And it is in the US government/military's interest to slander Assange and convict him in the court of public opinion so that when they do extradite him... there will not be one peep about the miscarriage of justice or application of torture because we've officially incorporated those corruptions into our institutions now.


                    In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                    by bronte17 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:44:26 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      SwedishJewfish, koNko

                      I've read both The Swedish Governemt, and Assanges lawyers arguments from the High court documents, so have read both sides arguments, I suggest that you go and read both sides arguments, (links are in one of my comments higher up)

                      Saying that the woman did not bring those charges may not be an honest argument, Do you know if the accuser brings charges in the Swedish system?  I know that in the UK system, most serious charges are not brought by the individual, but rather by the state, so arguing that the individual hasn't bought those charges may be disingenuous at best.

                      Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

                      by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:57:19 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I have read through this entire case from the very (6+ / 0-)

                        beginning.

                        You OTOH started with it once it reached the shores of the UK. And, by then there were many peripheries to the case, the majority of which really had nothing to do with sex and the single girl and the Wikileaks' Assange.

                        But, most importantly, at the end of the day... this was about the legal maneuvering to entrap Assange so the US military can finally get him in their grasp.

                         


                        In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                        by bronte17 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:08:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  now why (0+ / 0-)

                          would you assume that I havent read from before the Uk was involved?

                          I still think the big bad USA military is trying to get their hands on him through Sweden is the most laughable bollocks.  and makes Obama was born in Kenya look like a work of towering genius

                          It would be easier to extradite him from the UK,

                          There are Legal reasons why extradition from Sweden would be more difficult than from the UK#

                          By going to Ecuador he's abandoning any protection he has from being extradited  to a country that has the death penalty.

                          His entire strategy only makes sense if he's actually trying to avoid the Rape charges in sweden

                          Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

                          by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:59:35 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  You keep saying that! (0+ / 0-)

                        At least I will thank you for the link.  (;-)

                        What about my Daughter's future?

                        by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:46:09 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Ah, here's the conspiracy theory nonsense. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sarahnity, Unit Zero, sviscusi
                      This diary is a hit piece. And it is in the US government/military's interest to slander Assange and convict him in the court of public opinion so that when they do extradite him... there will not be one peep about the miscarriage of justice or application of torture because we've officially incorporated those corruptions into our institutions now.
                      Adjust your tinfoil.  There is ZERO evidence that U.S. has anything to do with Assange's legal problems in Sweden.  None.  You have to twist yourself into knots to try and implicate the U.S., if you think about it for more than a few seconds.
                      •  I don't do tinfoil Boris (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        4kedtongue, atana, JesseCW

                        and your nonchalant insouciance doesn't get to put it on my head just because you haven't kept up with the intrinsic details of the case.


                        In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                        by bronte17 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:12:59 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I've kept up with the details, and your (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ginny in CO, Unduna, koNko

                          just insisting otherwise doesn't make what you claim remotely true.  The accusation that the U.S. is behind the Swedish investigation into Assange is unsubstantiated beyond the "Oh, isn't it obvious!" kind of conjecture that accompanies all conspiracy theories.

                          Isn't it obvious WTC7 was intentionally demolished?  Isn't it obvious we faked the Moon Landing?  Isn't it obvious Obama was born in Kenya?  Puh-leeze.

                          •  You're pulling the same stunt the diarist pulled (12+ / 0-)

                            Throwing up ugly and false equivalencies and, quite frankly, dancing around like a bear in clown suit in an attempt to make a slanderous analogy.

                            The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.

                            For several reasons, Assange has long feared that the US would be able to coerce Sweden into handing him over far more easily than if he were in Britain. For one, smaller countries such as Sweden are generally more susceptible to American pressure and bullying.

                            For another, that country has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US. A 2006 UN ruling found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt, where they were brutally tortured (both individuals, asylum-seekers in Sweden, were ultimately found to be innocent of any connection to terrorism and received a monetary settlement from the Swedish government).

                            Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings and oppressive pre-trial conditions, enabling any Swedish-US transactions concerning Assange to be conducted beyond public scrutiny. Ironically, even the US State Department condemned Sweden's "restrictive conditions for prisoners held in pretrial custody", including severe restrictions on their communications with the outside world.

                            Assange's fear of ending up in the clutches of the US is plainly rational and well-grounded. One need only look at the treatment over the last decade of foreign nationals accused of harming American national security to know that's true; such individuals are still routinely imprisoned for lengthy periods without any charges or due process. Or consider the treatment of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking to WikiLeaks: a formal UN investigation found that his pre-trial conditions of severe solitary confinement were "cruel, inhuman and degrading", and he now faces capital charges of aiding al-Qaida. The Obama administration's unprecedented obsession with persecuting whistleblowers and preventing transparency – what even generally supportive, liberal magazines call "Obama's war on whistleblowers" – makes those concerns all the more valid.

                            WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act : Washington Post
                            Wikileaks Grand Jury investigation widens : Salon
                            Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute : WSJ
                            A Sealed Indictment for Assange has been obtained : Rolling Stone
                            Assange lawyer condemns calls for assassination of Wikileaks' founder : MSNBC
                            Assange a high-tech terrorist says Joe Biden : The Guardian
                            Sarah Palin advocates for CIA to neutralize Assange : The Christian Science Monitor
                            Fox News' Bob Beckel Calls For 'Illegally' Killing Assange: 'A Dead Man Can't Leak Stuff' : Huffington Post
                            Sweden violated Torture Ban in CIA rendition: Human Rights Watch
                            Swedish law permits extreme levels of secrecy in judicial proceedings : GGDrafts from Fair Trials International


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:11:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL .. (0+ / 0-)

                            Keep going, your objectivity impresses!

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:47:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's it? Personal insults are all you've got? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            4kedtongue, pot

                            You know you've lost the argument when you turn like that.

                            If you've got something substantial to say and links to back it up, by all means go to it.


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:41:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since you have failed to respond (0+ / 0-)

                            To any of my substantial comments seriously and are spreading accusations in this thread like bread crumbs, perhaps you should not be surprised if people react to that.

                            I welcome serious debate on points of substance I have raised.

                            And welcome you to step back, take a deep breath and read your own comments objectively to get a better idea of your own tone and subjectivity.

                            I am always open to serious debate. Ball in your court.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:01:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The only responses *to my comments from you* (0+ / 0-)

                            that I see are two and in both of them you did nothing but complain with petty nothingness other than to engage in a catty verbal bitchslap.

                            Unless you are so arrogant as to presume that I would drop everything today and spend my day reading through this diary to dig out all of your glorious gems of "substantial comments?" Because you sure didn't leave anything substantial when you left personal attacks on two of my comments.

                            I'm sorry to be so harsh in my response, but damnation... you've been petty twice solely because I left links and comments that you didn't approve of.

                            It happens in every Assange diary with you.


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:53:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Quite to the contrary (0+ / 0-)

                            I have posted many comment here that focus strictly on the substance of the issues in a serious fashion.

                            But I will agree that in just about every diary concerning Assange on Daily Kos I have read and commented in, I find you posting and at some point or another, you getting in flame wars with me or others over these issues, with your hostility as a constant, whether you recognize it or not.

                            So to avoid unnecessary and unproductive conflicts, I suggest we avoid each other when it comes to topics surrounding Mr Assange because we obviously have different perspectives on his predicament and seem to be talking past each other.

                            I'm totally OK ignoring your comments on this subject even if I think you are saying something worth discussing.

                            So, deal?

                            I'm not here to get in fights and make enemies and I think we have common ground and agree on lots of things that matter more than the Julian Assange sideshow.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 04:03:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah... so you pull out the "You made me do it" (0+ / 0-)

                            pretext. In a diary prematurely judging a man of rape no less.

                            Remember who used the catty petty personal slapdowns in the first place as a response to links and information when you should have responded to the actual links and focused any dispute on that instead of taking the low road to character assassination in order to shoot down the veracity of the comment.

                            I didn't attack you. You attacked me when you didn't like the links and information posted. So, just because I didn't let you get your way doesn't make me complicit in your equivalency of "let's just avoid each other." You could have initially responded in a responsible manner and avoided this altogether.

                            And if you think that posting information and pushing back against premeditated judgments is "getting into fights" then you need to find a kinder gentler community.


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 05:06:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                            Simple fact. If you search back the comments I made in this diary I think you will find the vast majority (and they were many, maybe too many) discuss the substance of the issue, not meta, and I invite you to debate in substance to anything I posted if you are inclined.

                            As I noted elsewhere, I did react (negatively) to your suggestion the diarist and other are being "divisive" simply because you disagree with their viewpoint or they way they illustrated their points (at least that is how I interpret your remarks).

                            In doing so, you start to speak for the site & community, at least by implication, and I disagree with that - we are all members of the community, express ourselves as individuals, and provided we follow the site rules, are entitled to do so.

                            Is it possible you over-reacted to what she wrote? If you review the Diarist's history, I'll suggest she is hardly a trollish provocateur.

                            Your language in many remarks here is strong to the point you leave no doubt to where you stand in defending Assange to the last and that anyone criticizing him is going to get push-back from you. Honestly, you got the message across.

                            But that should not rule out others thinking differently and expressing themselves.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:51:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  To briefly elaborate (0+ / 0-)

                            Objectively, your comment above is grinding a big, speculative ax loaded with links to support your hypothesis.

                            But it is merely speculation. Hasn't happened, and given the notoriety of the case and world attention on it including by the UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression, very unlikely.

                            And then there is this sort of suff:

                            I don't do tinfoil Boris

                            and your nonchalant insouciance doesn't get to put it on my head just because you haven't kept up with the intrinsic details of the case.

                            You're pulling the same stunt the diarist pulled

                            Throwing up ugly and false equivalencies and, quite frankly, dancing around like a bear in clown suit in an attempt to make a slanderous analogy.

                            Perhaps I over-reacted to your mild tone and balanced argument.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:22:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It doesn't make a damn that you don't approve of (0+ / 0-)

                            my tone. I'm not a princess and I don't do the princess worship like some people.

                            How I say what I say is none of your business. I'm frank and get to the point of what I intend to say. And at this point in my life... I'm not going to change. Like I said... I don't do the princess routine and I really don't care for people who prop it up.

                            And I don't pull punches when people are setting up ugly false analogies to influence people here. And this diary was a most vile ugly setup of false analogies to poison people's minds with associations that have nothing to do with Julian Assange.

                            And my gawd... you have the audacity to claim that my links are "speculation" and haven't happened? What friggin' world do you live in?


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 06:02:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ironic then (0+ / 0-)

                            That you complain so much about "divisiveness" and "tone"

                            I probably am so audacious that I dare to question your assertions because I have difficulties with the Daily Kos user interface, it seems not to display your awsome badassness in full color, sound and motion, so I'm missing a lot.

                            No, Assange has not been kidnapped and I find it highly unlikely to ever happen for the reasons I have stated in other comments to this diary, so won't bother repeating.

                            If you really want to debate this, you can search my comments and you will find several that consider the issue or extra-judicial actions, and, incidentally, my support of Assaunge to request political asylum under international law if he desires to.

                            Because, I support rule of law above rule of men.

                            And facts over speculation.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 03:48:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Political asylum as a Western dissident appears (0+ / 0-)

                            to be the path that Assange is taking.  


                            In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                            by bronte17 on Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 01:37:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And he has a right to do so. (0+ / 0-)

                            Which I have clearly stated several times here, and I defend his right regardless of what I or others may think of his personal behavior.

                            Rule of law is important.

                            Rule of men: extra-judcial kidnapping, torture, etc.

                            I firmly stand on the rule of law.

                            What about my Daughter's future?

                            by koNko on Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 10:57:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're conflating two different things (0+ / 0-)

                            to make a case for something that is not supported by what you presented.

                            Not a single link you provided in anyway proves some sort of conspiracy between the U.S. and Sweden on the sexual assault charges.  Not one jot of it.

                            That the U.S. would like to charge him for the leaks is true.  That Sweden would like to charge him for sexual assault is true.  Linking the two?  No evidence.

                •  They don't have to (0+ / 0-)

                  This would be a criminal, not a civil matter. The prosecutor decides, that's how the process works.

                  "State" vs "Defendant", if it comes to that.

                  What about my Daughter's future?

                  by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:45:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And again... for the 1000th time... the prosecutor (0+ / 0-)

                    worked the case the first time and decided it had no merits for prosecution and dismissed it.

                    So, the conservative wingnuts in Sweden (yes indeed... they do have them) went prosecutor shopping until they found one who would do what they wanted and reopen the case.

                    And the odds of that happening are very VERY remote... something like 0.003%. And that statistic comes from the Swedish website... so no, I did not pull it out of my ass like I presume you are going to claim in your response.


                    In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                    by bronte17 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 06:16:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  If swedish law is fucked up, (0+ / 0-)

                that should be their problem, not Assange's.

                all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

                by happymisanthropy on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:31:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  the UK's hands are tied by EU rules (0+ / 0-)

                the EU warrant system has its fans and opponents, but it certainly confuses things here.

                I would be happier if the Swedes confirmed that they will NOT extradite him to the US.  Glory be the US/UK extradition treaty is bad enough so I don't see why he would want to stay here in England, but I do understand why he is concerned about the US.

                If the Swedes gave this  public assurance then on what basis could he oppose a return to Sweden..... none that I would support, for one.  Why won't they do this, do we know?

                The accusations by these two women need to be treated with the proper respect, whatever that means in fact, so let's get on with that.

            •  yes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin, bronte17

              there is the personal interaction between Assange and the women and then there is the political action between Assange and the U.S/British, etc political power and outrage over release of information that is embarrassing to leaders in    countries who we've seen can throw someone into a cell and throw away the key.

              Obviously, wrt  Assange's interaction with the women - which under normal circumstances should be heard in a judicial setting to determine if Assange behaved badly or hideously or if he did nothing wrong. (It's also possible in this case that the women have been encouraged by political provocateurs to pursue this in order to get to Assange.)
              If he faces the investigation of whether he behaved criminally vs responsibly with these women, it will provide an opportunity for him to to become a political prisoner with no one to protect him.
              Rei's tragic and painful experience, it seems, has been experienced by both men and women, again and again.
              My own feeling about it is the perpetrator has no clue about what the victim is feeling. Either the perpetrator doesn't care and is a vicious psychopath or the perpetrator wants to satisfy themselves and  therefore convinces themselves that the victim is saying "no" but really means "yes" because of a mistaken idea that the victim doesn't really know their own mind. There is far too little understanding and communication between human beings - there is far too little awareness and appreciation of another person's feelings and will. There is also far too little awareness within each person of what and why they are doing something. If the man in Rei's case were not so narcissistic he would have cared how Rei felt and it would have been important to him for her to be happy.
              He pretended to care when he asked Rei if she "enjoyed it". How could she have? He must have been a total idiot. He was an immature, possibly insecure, unmanly aggressor. Sorry for your pain Rei - you are very fortunate that he was "unsuccessful" from the point of view of your physical health.
              I still think we are, as human beings, still in a very primitive state of understanding each other. That skill is very rare, IMO.
              But each of us, through life's hard and painful experiences, sadly, face, I think, something akin to PTSD reliving the traumas and trying to figure out what happened and why. I don't think the pain goes away but hopefully is a little softened with time.
              As far as Julian Assange, he seems to be a very unusual character who, for his own reasons chose to risk a lot to expose government lies. We will never know, who this man is but I think we owe him a debt because so much stupidity is kept hidden from the very people who pay for what happens with their taxes and with their lives.

              Finally people have gotten sick and tired of being had and taken for idiots. Mikhail Gorbachev

              by eve on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:33:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

              No one is asserting speculative "facts" more than the Assange partisans on this thread.

              And to answer your question, Sweden is under no obligation to grant Assange immunity from extradition by a third country in the event of another case, which is purely a matter of speculation at this point since it hasn't happened.

              There is no bargaining position to be had in a negotiation process that does not exist and there is, and should not be anything special about Julian Assange in the eyes of the law when it comes to due process other than to provide it.

              If he returned to Sweden, and if then the US then sought to extradite him, that would be another case for another court and he could present arguments then.

              BTW, legal process is not usually conducted outside jurisdiction of a court, and not a mater of "convenience" where criminal cases are involved, that is why extradition exists and why there is a legal process involved which the UK has followed, finally rendering an order.

              What about my Daughter's future?

              by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 04:01:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Oops. I meant to reply to post above yours. (0+ / 0-)

            It isn't really responsive to yours at all.

          •  Certainly there are degrees and types of abuse (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nicolemm

            that are not as simple as man forces woman to have sex with him. But it starts to get a bit semantic. I think it is best to reserve the word "rape" for the violent forcing of a sex act, and other kinds of coercion and injurious behavior should be labelled abuse, and if they are crimes that there should be names for those crimes that might be other than rape. I don't want to seem like I would want to defend the nobility of the word "rape" as it is such an ignoble thing, so that's not it, but at the risk of possibly seeming to be doing that by saying this, it does seem to cheapen the word "rape" in a way that makes the worst kind of sex act, a rape, seem a bit less bad when every time a woman changes her mind near the moment of orgasm and starts to vaguely seem to be saying "no" or "stop" that that too is then called "rape." In a nutshell, I think it is a bad idea to use the word "rape" for circumstances where sex is not unconsentual, that's all. I hope that seems okay.

            "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

            by The House on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:59:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I agree but how about this? An old friend once (0+ / 0-)

            Told me she intended to have sex with a guy for a night of drinks and party when she vacationed in the Bahamas.  She then said after they got hot and naked, foreplay and they started to have intercourse she somehow decided minutes into it she didn't want to have sex anymore and asked the man who was already in deep heat to stop.  Now how does someone stop in that moment thinking "hell we are already screwing"?  Many people, including me, think this sudden decision of hers on a whim is malicious to men who are already having sex.  Some women just want to stop in mid orgasm and then call it rape.  Women who play this game are a group of big arse teasers screwing with men.  

            These laws make men rapists and have women holding the phone ready to call 911 based on what she feels at the moment.  

            Rape is ugly but in my opinions she contributed to what she calls rape as conspirator and participant.

            •  Hmmm ... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sarahnity, Unit Zero, janemas

              I predict you'll get some pretty negative responses to this.  But I'll try to give a non-judgmental response:

              First of all, maybe I've just been fortunate in the (relatively few) women I've been intimate with over the years, but this strikes me a more of a movie plot than a real-life situation.

              Second, I have in fact stopped when I was "already in deep heat" and the woman I was with was uncomfortable for some reason.  Maybe it's just me but I don't really see what's supposed to be so hard about that.  Sex is good because it's a mutual thing - if I were only into what I feel I would just masturbate.

              “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:35:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for the response and insight. This was (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                for 6 too, jrooth

                told to me by my old friend who admitted this.  Some women are just quirky.  The idea that all men are bad and all women are good when it comes to relationship and sex is bs.  Some women are just plain off the wall and do react weird when it comes to sex.

            •  If a woman says stop (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound

              You stop.

              If a man says stop, you stop.

              If you don't stop, you are in fact committing an act of rape.

              I have to stop during sex sometimes because I occasionally get vivid flashbacks of being sexually abused. You have NO idea what the reasons are, nor is that any of your concern. Just fucking stop when someone asks you to stop, it isn't rocket science.

               

              "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"- MLK

              by SwedishJewfish on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:21:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry. (32+ / 0-)

          If I told a guy that that he had to use a condom and then he went ahead and penetrated without a condom, I don't think I would come up with any other word for that than 'rape'. What else could it be? That's a horrifying scenario. It's a forced sexual act with a clear lack of consent. Someone penetrating you without your consent (whether violent or not), especially if unprotected (!), is a BFD. And rape.

          Of course, it's not up to us to say whether he's guilty or not. But I do find it disturbing that so many on the left don't think he should even go to Sweden.

          •  For the record: (9+ / 0-)

            I'm all for his going to Sweden.  100% in favor of it, IF and ONLY IF Swedish authorities very publicly put it out on the line and flat out say that they will not grant any extradition requests made by the U.S.

            Why can't they just make that assurance and end all this speculation?

            Again, the fact that they haven't speaks volumes to me.

            •  Look (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Unduna, Dauphin

              Legally  Sweden  CANNOT extradite Assange to the US under the treaty with the UK without the permission of the UK when he's extradited. he's extradited to face those charges and those charges only.

              The UK foreign Minister has to give written permission for this, and if he did the UK courts will strike any attempt out as an abuse of UK extradition processes and treaties, and as an abuse of european law, The swedish courts will agree with this. so rather than being dragged through the courts, a UK foreign minister will just not sign the necessary paperwork.

              Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

              by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:48:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sure that politics has nothing (5+ / 5-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg, Rizzo, native, varro, for 6 too
          Hidden by:
          nickrud, Unduna, JayRaye, Cinnamon, dnta

          to do with the charges against Assange.[/snark]

            This is so obviously a political prosecution that to deny it being as such is stupid.
            Assange is being prosecuted for being a jerk. Nothing more. That wasn't rape. If that was rape then I suggest most men in society stop trying to have sex with women.
             From now on the only legally permitted sex is when the woman  vocally demands it.

          Callate o despertaras la izquirda! - protest sign in Spain

          by gjohnsit on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:57:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow. I had better want it and ask for it, vocally (15+ / 0-)

            or at the very least it is undeniably known to be wanted....each and every time any man tries to have sex with me.  If I say no at any time he had better stop.  Period.  

            No is no every time or it is rape.  

          •  It fits the definition of rape (15+ / 0-)

            in Sweden, and as the women involved were Swedish and felt their rights and persons violated, because they laws there reflect this, then it is rape, that is a violation of consent.

            To so obviously disregard the violation of consent and to try and write it off as "stupid" contains a healthy dose of callousness.

            Luckily, many men (I won't say "most" since I don't have direct experience here to back it up) don't approach sex with women in this manner.  

            And his behavior goes far beyond "being a jerk".  I've no doubt that there are plenty of people who don't see the problem with that.  However, the distinction here is that he engaged in behavior beyond-being-a-jerk in a society where that kind of beyond-being-a-jerk behavior is, in fact recognized as crossing a line and there are laws about it.

            So yes, in Sweden, that's rape.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:26:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  None of that is the point here (7+ / 0-)

              People are commenting, and writing Diaries based upon assumptions of what happened.

              The accusers are "victims" and the alleged perpetrator is a rapist.

              Maybe, maybe not, but under US law he isn't a rapist, wouldn't even be charged with rape ... wouldn't actually, be charged with anything just as he was not charged with anything by the original Prosecutor.

              If she had brought charges there would have been a trial, and he might have been fined or given a very short custodial sentence.

              "Interpol Warrants" and "Extradition" do not come even close to a reasonable response here .... neither does the fact that a second Prosecutor had to be found who would be willing to pursue this.

              What surprise me is that the tactic of flinging a "rape" allegation around has so many Progressives buying into the premise.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              by twigg on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:02:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I find this to be a very fucked up comment. (8+ / 0-)

            You know what is obvious, you know what is true,
            you know exactly what happened,
            you know exactly what these women experienced and what they definitely did not experience (how very wise of you!!)
            and everybody who says other than what you are saying, is what?  
            not quite up to your god-like knowledge and special powers so they had better just forget about the law?

            Who do you think you are?

            "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

            by Unduna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:35:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's comforting to know (13+ / 0-)

            that among 'progressives', a person who forces non-consensual sex acts upon another is only worthy of the label 'jerk'.

            Kathleen Sebelius 2016

            by pvlb on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:38:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Uh... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cachola, for 6 too

              ...broad brush, there.  Why are 'progressives' being saddled with a single comment which, as of my typing of this comment, has received not ONE rec?

              Please point to the 'progressives' who have endorsed the idea that a person who forces non-consensual sex acts upon another is only worthy of the label 'jerk'.

              I find your comment, and its 7 recs, equally 'comforting'.

              •  Did I say (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SwedishJewfish

                ALL progressives?  Many?  The majority?  
                No, I said among.  That means among -- in the set calling themselves progressive.  Could be the proverbial bad apple.  Could be a lot of bad apples.  Can't really say.

                What I can say, is that there is a resounding lack of understanding of women and women's issues on this blog, the one commenter, notwithstanding.

                Kathleen Sebelius 2016

                by pvlb on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:17:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your comment was... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  for 6 too

                  ...and remains -- even after your parsing -- a ridiculously tired and cheap pot shot based on a single comment made by someone you conveniently characterize as 'progressive' which does not enjoy broad -- or narrow, for that matter -- support in actual politically progressive circles.  If you "can't really say," then why say anything at all?  Please.

                  Furthermore, the number of recs this diary has received PLUS the caveats offered by those who understand and support Assange's decision to continue fighting his extradition to Sweden seem to belie your assertion of a resounding lack of understanding of women and women's issues on this blog.  So now, if I am to understand you, in addition to a certain unspecified number of 'progressives' who think of rapists as little more than 'jerks', there's a general...excuse me...resounding lack of understanding of women and women's issues on this blog?

                  I suppose that resounding lack of understanding of which you write resides primarily among 'progressives', or am I getting ahead of myself?

          •  You just have to have consent (11+ / 0-)

            Why is that so fucking difficult?

            It gives a lovely light.

            by CayceP on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:44:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Seriously. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              twigg

              No generally means no. Every two year old knows that. Lack of consent makes it rape. Period.
              However, I don't think that Assange is being paranoid about being extradited to the US.

              There are plenty of people willing to brand him a rapist or a molester based purely on allegations, apparently because of their strong feelings on the subject.
              Unfortunately this includes the current administration and most of Congress, the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. They used to prosecute gangsters for tax evasion, which is illegal and contemptible. Nonetheless, tax evasion was not what those trials were about. Would Sweden extradite Assange? Considering the pressure the US can bring to bear, the answer is probably yes.

              "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in". Leonard Cohen

              by northsylvania on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:07:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  If we followed your logic, gjohnsit, (13+ / 0-)

            then we might as well roll back the whole feminist project, back to the days when non-consensual sex was seen as part of the price of women's relationship with men.

            This:

            From now on the only legally permitted sex is when the woman  vocally demands it.
            ... is fatuous. It's just like all the hand-wringing over claims that "no means no" is "political correctness gone mad." It's a tactic that makes women feel bad for wanting to exert control over what is often an ambiguous and intimidating situation.

            What if Assange turned out to be HIV positive? It's evident that he wasn't, but what if he was? STD's notwithstanding, it is a violation for women to be exposed to the prospect of pregnancy when they ask not to be. There is no way that a situation in which a woman had explicitly asked for protected sex -- and then been subject to unprotected sex -- could be deemed consensual. He exposed her to a sexual situation that she distinctly asked not to be subjected to.

            Should our credentials as progressives only kick in on a selective, ad hoc basis?

            What seems "political" here is precisely the attachment of Assange's defenders to a kind of conspiracy theory about trumped up charges, and a willingness to discredit the women's stories because it is inconvenient to their heroic narrative about him.

            Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

            by Dale on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:09:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  yikes. (6+ / 0-)

            Rape apologia among progressives (well, anybody) is so very disturbing.

            by terrypinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:41:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If men can't get consent (3+ / 0-)

            then yes, they should stop.

            But we're back to the stone age here.

            This alone here is pretty text book "not getting consent" date rape at minimum:

            . She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said,

            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:03:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  this comment is about as fucked up (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Unduna, JayRaye, sviscusi, SwedishJewfish

            a one as I've ever read from a regular here. Welcome to my first donut of the year. (pretty sure about the date)

            Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

            by nickrud on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:35:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, my fucking god. (17+ / 0-)
          The overwhelming majority of us do not feel the need to see those responsible for the less than perfectly agreeable sex we had punished.
          The difference between "sex I agreed to have" and "sex I found agreeable" is the difference between rape and an unskilled lover.  For fuck's sake.  If Assange can't be defended without that sort of claptrap, then don't defend him.    

          Romney is campaigning to be President SuperBain; his cure is to cut wages, end pensions, let companies go bankrupt, and let the assets of production go dark or be sold to China. He really thinks thats the best of all possible Americas.

          by Inland on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:11:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look, this idea that Miss A said put on a (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            for 6 too

            condom, and he saying he doesn't want to, but then does, and in the course of what certainly seems to be consensual sex the condom breaks, and MAYBE he broke it on purpose amounts to rape is total BS.

            Is that or is it not what seems to have happened. If so, it sure doesn't seem to rise to "rape."

            "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

            by The House on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:48:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  All "if so" is going to be resolved in Sweden or (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The House

              not at all.  

              Romney is campaigning to be President SuperBain; his cure is to cut wages, end pensions, let companies go bankrupt, and let the assets of production go dark or be sold to China. He really thinks thats the best of all possible Americas.

              by Inland on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:39:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It's impossible to (57+ / 0-)

        fairly discuss this issue without also addressing the fact that the United States government is persecuting Assange. That fact might very well have nothing to do with the rape allegations, but in assessing what Assange is doing -- and what his "defenders" are saying -- it's essential.

        That is, to argue that Assange is wise, and within his rights, to resist extradition and seek asylum is not to dismiss the allegations or disrespect the women making the allegations. It's to face reality.

        He has good reason to fear that, even if the allegations don't lead to a criminal charge, Sweden will allow the United States to take him into custody. The U.S. has convened a grand jury and wants to charge him with espionage. Biden has called him a terrorist. The example of Bradley Manning weighs heavily.

        Yesterday, one of Assange's lawyers, Michael Ratner, said that if the United States announced that it will not seek to prosecute and/or detain Assange, he would gladly go to Sweden to face the allegations.

        •  Further, I know that (45+ / 0-)

          some -- a minority -- of Assange's "defenders" are dismissing the allegations out of hand, but most aren't. Most agree with Greenwald.

          (1) Assange, like everyone else, is entitled to a presumption of innocence before he’s charged, let alone convicted of anything; (2) the accusations against him are serious and they should be accorded a fair resolution within a proper legal framework; and (3) until then, he has every right — just like everyone else does — to invoke any and all available legal protections and to have their validity decided upon.
        •  That argument would hold more water (8+ / 0-)

          if Sweden didn't likewise possess a legal system where one can appeal extradition...

          Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

          by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:18:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ratner also explains why (20+ / 0-)

            Assange would be much more vulnerable in Sweden than he is in England.

            for the U.S. to move within Britain, of course, it would have complicated matters a great deal, because then he’s facing a Swedish—a Swedish prosecution, and then the U.S. comes in. So what happens to the U.S.—to the U.S. indictment? And then, of course, Julian Assange gets notice that he’s been indicted in the United States, and of course it makes his situation more precarious. And in addition, he would have probably been able to remain on the streets in London, whereas the U.S., really, I think, probably understood that as soon as he gets into Sweden, he’s in prison, he may—those charges may not amount—not charges, those allegations may not amount to anything once he testifies, once he gives evidence, and then they can keep him in prison with this warrant.

            And I also think that, if you look at the situation, Sweden versus the U.K., the U.K. can take years to get someone extradited. I mean, we know of the case—I forgot his name, but the young man who supposedly hacked into the Pentagon computer to find out about UFOs—seven, eight years on his extradition. Incredible extradition lawyers in London. It’s a big country. Sweden, whatever we think of Sweden, its justice system certainly seems to have some problems, because Julian Assange would be in jail without bail. And also, it’s a smaller country and just can be knocked around more by the United States.

            •  Two problems. (7+ / 0-)

              One, he assumes Sweden would buckle under the pressure. Given Sweden's notoriously low corruption and open governmet, that's not a given.

              Secondly, detention of foreigners is not unusual. My own country's examining magistrates automatically assume a foreign citizen poses a flight risk and order detention unless compelling reasons suggest a foreigner is not a flight risk (long-term resident and so on).

              Although, given how... creative Assange has been with resisting extradition, I think even absent such a presumption it's not unreasonable to assume he poses a flight risk.

              Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

              by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:32:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe Sweden would, maybe it wouldn't (38+ / 0-)

                Greenwald explains why it might.

                In general, small countries are more easily coerced and bullied by the U.S., and Sweden in particular has a demonstrated history of aceeding to U.S. demands when it comes to individuals accused of harming American national security. In December, 2001, Sweden handed over two asylum-seekers to the CIA, which then rendered them to be tortured in Egypt. A ruling from the U.N. Human Rights Committee found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for its role in that rendition (the two individuals later received a substantial settlement from the Swedish government). The fact that Sweden has unusually oppressive pre-trial procedures — allowing for extreme levels of secrecy in its judicial proceedings — only heightens Assange’s concern about what will happen to him vis-a-vis the U.S. if he ends up in Swedish custody.
                Social democratic tendencies does not necessarily lead to resistance of American power.

                No one knows what Sweden would do, but given the prospect of getting gobbled up by the United States, he'd be idiot to take his chances.

                •  Do people bringing that up... (4+ / 0-)

                  really think that A) after the negative publicity from handing over people in secret to the CIA, that they'd do it again, B) that a totally different government still means the same policies, and especially that C) they'd dare do that with someone as high profile as Assange, even if they wanted to, or D) that the UK doesn't have a long history of rendition?   Just ignoring that those people in Sweden were only handed over to be brought back to their home countries (as cruel as it was to send them to their home countries) and were people who had no legal right to be there (asylum seeker != defendant).  

                  And lastly, is your alternative solution that Assange gets a "get out of jail for all crimes free" card from here until eternity because he's a whistleblower?

                •  you forget (0+ / 0-)

                  the US has the death penalty, and under some of those espionage charge, taht would be on the table.  I suspect neither the US nor Sweden would be in a position to extradict under those circumstances.

                  And of course, your spinning ignores something:  Why hasn't the US asked the UK for extradition directly, then?  It's not like there's any bar to bypassing sweden entirely

                  Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                  by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:07:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The U.S could simply (7+ / 0-)

                    say it won't seek the death penalty - problem solved.

                    And as I've pointed out, there are reasons why the U.S. might think it's easier to get its hands on him via Sweden. Here's a former legal adviser to the State Department.

                    The Swedish warrant doesn't necessarily have precedence. The U.S. government must be considering that if it brings charges against Assange--and I expect that they will do so, if they have not, in fact, already secured sealed indictments--it should ask for Assange's extradition from the UK or wait for him to be extradited to Sweden and then request his extradition from Sweden. And they are certainly looking at the technical aspects of the two extradition agreements between the UK and Sweden and then considering the political and legal atmosphere in both places.

                    With respect to the UK, we have a new and well-functioning extradition treaty that was negotiated just a few years ago between the United States and the UK, and a very good extradition relationship government to government. In general, I might expect that the U.S. government would try to have him extradited from the UK rather than from Sweden, and the UK does have some discretion to extradite him to the United States rather than to Sweden. On the other hand, certainly Assange's lawyers would mount a very vigorous opposition in either case, in London in particular. Past U.S. extradition requests for criminals from the UK have faced vigorous opposition, and a number of people have successfully resisted that through appeals through the House of Lords and ultimately all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights. We can anticipate lengthy litigation.

                    •  This is not any different (0+ / 0-)

                      from what could be expected in Sweden.  The fact is, the US can seek extradition from either place, both ending up at the ECHR.

                      So all this hubbub trying to give Assange a free pass on rape charges is very highly suspect.   I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't make a lick of sense, especially since US cooperation with the UK has a considerably deeper record than with Sweden.

                      Frankly, this argument is just so much smoke.

                      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                      by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:31:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ? (9+ / 0-)

                        I just cited a government lawyer, one who wants Assange prosecuted, saying it might be easier for the U.S. to get him extradited from Sweden - where, not incidentally, he'll be in prison.

                        There are no rape charges. There are allegations -- allegations that Assange should be permitted to face without ending up in American prison for the rest of his life.

                        It's not complicated: end his persecution; his rationale for avoiding extradition evaporates, and so do all of the arguments in his defense.

                        •  so he gets a free pass (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ginny in CO

                          on any US laws he may have broken?

                          I'm not sure you're helping yourself here.

                          the very lawyer you quote in fact suggests that extradicting from the UK might well be preferable:

                          In general, I might expect that the U.S. government would try to have him extradited from the UK rather than from Sweden, and the UK does have some discretion to extradite him to the United States rather than to Sweden
                          What you quoted in fact completely eliminates the "this is trumped up by the US to make it easier to extradict him" theory.  100% gone.

                          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                          by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:46:03 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, I see (7+ / 0-)

                            You think Assange may have broken laws. What laws could he possibly have broken?

                            No wonder you think he should go to Sweden, you have no problem with the U.S. persecution of him and wouldn't mind if he's forced to come to the U.S.

                            Your interest in justice only does so far.

                          •  well, yes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            I think that it is quite possible that he broke laws by releaseing classified information.  Typically that sort of thing is a violation of some law or another.  And yes, I think that we should take rape allegations seriously generally.  Ultimately, that is for first the Grand Jury and then for a jury to decide.

                            As I noted, there's little indication that the CTs about trumped up charges byt the CIA or what not have any merit whatsoever, so this "persectution" business is verging on hallucination.

                            But yes, my interest in justice involves a trust in the process and the rule of law, and I don't hold with carving out exceptions for popular figures.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:00:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Two questions about that: (5+ / 0-)

                            Is anyone anywhere in the world subject to US jurisdiction?

                            Do you think the New York Times, Der Spiegel etc. can be legitimately prosecuted for publishing classified information?

                            “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:07:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  pretty easy (0+ / 0-)

                            no, hence the existence of extradition treaties to bring people into US jurisdiction.

                            and, well, it would depend on what they do and how they do it.  Whether what Assange did falls inside or outside the bounds of the law is not particualrly something for me to decide, especially since I don't know the law in this area in detail.  However, I imagine that if they simply dumped a database of classified information willy-nilly, or engaged in illicit means to get it, then yes, they (or rather their reporters) may well be liable criminally.

                            Put it another way: I don't think IOKIFYAJ applies.  Even journalists have laws they have to follow.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:28:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You misinterpreted my question (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WisePiper, atana, for 6 too, 4kedtongue

                            I was asking about people elsewhere in the world being subject to US law.  If US law applies to someone in, say, Australia, wouldn't (for example) Iranian law apply to people in the United States?

                            What I'm asking is:  why is someone who is not a US person and resides in some other country subject to prosecution under US law?  And if you think they are, are you and I subject to the laws of every other nation in the world?

                            “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:59:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am certain (0+ / 0-)

                            that his lawyers will raise this very point, and he may well win on it and walk out of the courthouse absolved of any wrongdoing.  And I suspect it may well be exactly what happens.

                            There are certain cases where foreign residents are subject to US law based on their activities reaching into the U.S.  For example, drug lords residing abroad are not atypically brought to trial in the US for violations occuring here.  Similarly, others may be liable for financial dealings that reach into the US.  Or people who plot terrorist attacks in the US from Afghanistan could be held liable under US law.   I think it depends on whether the activities reach into the US in some way for courts to assume jurisdiction.

                            Now, probalby one of the key questions on this issue is going to be whether publishing on the internet qualifies for reaching into the US so as to be liable under US law.  From what I remember from law school (which I wouldn't put a lot of faith in), I could easily see that Assange wins on this point resoundingly and is done.

                            So the short answer is, yes, I think if I engage in activities in another country remotely (that is, direct my agents, say) then I can be held liable by that country.  

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:07:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Or ... (6+ / 0-)

                            we get our hands on him and then he spends the rest of his life as an "enemy combatant" who is "too dangerous to release" but who for some classified reason can't be prosecuted.

                            Our president does, after all claim the power to do that and our legislature and courts seem unwilling to challenge that idea.

                            But in any case, I think the notion that putting something on the internet makes you subject to the laws of every nation that the internet reaches is a really, really dangerous one.

                            “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:17:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is a reach (0+ / 0-)

                            There is zero precedent for what you suggest, and no legal basis for it whatsoever.  This puts it in CT territory.

                            Yes, I think you are right about Internet activities and I thin US courts agree with you.  This is why I suspect that Assange will beat any charges (if any) that are filed against him.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:26:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Zero precedent? (4+ / 0-)

                            There are people in our custody right now whom our government categorizes exactly as I described.

                            “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:37:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                            for involvement in terrorism,  not for involvement in leaks.  Not even Maninng is being held without trial.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:43:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, that's what we're told. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            atana, for 6 too, 4kedtongue

                            And maybe it's true, but that's the thing about having courts and trials and such - to "try the facts" rather than just assuming the (secret) accusations are true.

                            And frankly, I see no reason to be confident that our government, once having claimed and used this power, will not over time expand it to an ever-broader class of "enemies."

                            Manning has been charged with "aiding the enemy."  The basis for that ridiculous over-reach of a charge is that al Qaeda could read his leaks on the internet and benefit from them.  The corollary of that claim is necessarily that Assange has "aided the enemy" by publishing what Manning allegedly leaked.  How much of a stretch is it really to think that makes him part of al Qaeda in the minds of the people who claim and use the power of indefinite imprisonment without charge?  You may think it a stretch, but it you were Assange would you bet your life and freedom on that assessment?

                            “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:55:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            As long as you are dealing in pure speculation and CT you arent on solid ground.  Right now we have people arguing that Assange shouldn't have to face rape charges based on some shadowy speculation about conspiracies involving notions of what might happen.   That's pretty damned thin.  

                            In fact, Manning might also be absolved as well if the governments case is so weak.  We shall see

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:59:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe some are arguing (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BradyB, atana, for 6 too

                            Assange shouldn't have to face rape charges, that's not what I have said.

                            What I argue is that his fear of falling into US hands is not at all irrational, given the outrageous stuff our government has taken to doing over the past 12 years.  And I've argued that if the Swedish prosecutors are solely interested in finding the truth and achieving justice with regard to the allegations of sexual misconduct or rape, then there are accommodations they could make to alleviate that rational fear without damaging their ability to prosecute.

                            “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:12:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  On that we agree (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm responding to these ridiculous accusations that the rape charges are trumped up by the CIA or some such in order to make extradition to the US easier, which holds no water at all.

                            And I agree that Assange has good cause to be worried, but it is no more than a worry at this time.  So far, for example, the US is going through the regular GJ proceedings to bring charges, which they wouldn't do for an enemy combatant, and they haven't treated Manning as an e.c. either.  Thus, it seems very much that he'll have his day in court unless he manages to go Roman Polanski on them.

                            And if under the applicable laws, extradition to the US from either Sweden or the UK is called for, then his fear isn't much basis for denying it, absent a legally adequate showing.  Typically a lot of "coulds" and "mights" don't meet taht standard.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:17:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He didn't (7+ / 0-)
                            I think that it is quite possible that he broke laws by releaseing classified information.
                            You're confusing Bradley Manning, alleged to have released info, and Assange, who published it, as good journalists do. Barely a week goes by without the NY Times publishing classified info.

                            The U.S. prosecution of Assange is full frontal attack on the First Amendment.

                          •  No, I'm not (0+ / 0-)

                            Setting aside the notion of whether Assange qualifies as a journalist at all, seeing as he does not report on anything but simply publishes undigested materials, which isn't journalism at all, it is a matter of a law as to whether participating in the chain of custody from theft to release qualifies one for prosecution or not.  Frankly, if Manning committed a crime it seems unfathomable tht Assange hasn't also.  

                            And you might want to review your first amendment law.  Contrary to popular belief, the first amendment does not give one an unfettered right to operate free of regulation, any more than just about any other right is absolute under the US constitution.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:41:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're usually a pretty knowledge (8+ / 0-)

                            commentator, as your handle suggest, but in this case, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

                            he does not report on anything but simply publishes undigested materials
                            Wrong. WL both publishes original source material and writes its own news stories. And you don't have to be a "journalist" to be entitled to 1st Amendment protections.
                            if Manning committed a crime it seems unfathomable tht Assange hasn't also.  
                            Releasing classified info is one thing.
                            Publishing it is another.
                            Got it?
                          •  I stand corrected (0+ / 0-)

                            I was unaware of the publishing, although certainly he could well have been involved in both.  This case will turn on his involvement in the theft and release, I would imagine.

                              (and thanks for the compliment too!  Now, let me try to live up to it!)

                            Clearly, there is some line between what a journalist can and can't do with classified information.  To use the overly trite example, I think a journalist would be very likely to be criminally liable if they published the operational plans for the raid on bin Laden before it happened or published the details of troop deployments during a war.

                            I only raise that to illustrate that the first amendment does not give universal immunity to publish anything willy nilly.  (which you know already).  

                            I note that while Assange is under investigation and Grand Jury inquiry, the NYT and other who published materals from WL are not (or do I have that wrong too?  I haven't followed closely).

                            There obviously is a division in there betwen being involved in the initial theft and then the subsequent publication based on it, as you say.  My understanding though is that Assange was involved in getting the materials out and not just publishing the scoop.  This is, however, what the case will turn on.  

                            In any event, whether the actions are on the theft side of the line or the protected journalistic side is a matter for the GJ and for trial.  

                            So, I do think that there's a likelihood that laws were broken and that a trial should sort that out.   And it should be speedy and done while he's out on bond.

                            Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                            by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:16:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  My guess is that UK authorities have begged and (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        white blitz, for 6 too

                        pleaded with U.S. authorities to not bring charges against Assange while he's in their custody.

                        Why?  So as to avoid a lose-lose decision where UK authorities have to decide whether to send Assange to the U.S. or Sweden.

                        There's already a widespread view among the UK populace that their government is nothing more than a U.S. lapdog.  You can bet that both the U.S. and the UK want to avoid a situation which would throw another log on that fire.

                        •  my guess (0+ / 0-)

                          is that UK authorities are responding to Sweden's petition, and the US is proceeding with it's process and the UK will respond to any extradition request if and when it comes.

                          Frankly, I think Mr. Cameron and Mr. Obama and their respective administrations are interested in pursuing their respective legal processes and aren't particularly bothered by conspiracy theorists.  Frankly, I can't imagine that this is where Cameron would choose to make a show of independence.

                          I would hope that those few people remaining who still believe in the rule of law will do their work in carrying legal processes forward.

                          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

                          by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:06:47 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Unduna, Gator Keyfitz, Prairie D

              But this argument is rubbish.

              FirstlyIt's easier to extradite from the UK than Sweden to the US. (Theres a lower standard of proof required)

              Secondly, Under terms of the UK/Sweden extradition treaty, a person extradited from the Uk is  not legally allowed to be extradited on to a third party, without the permission of the UK foreign minister and that is  not allowed without permission of the UK courts.  So the argument that  Sweden is a small country to be knocked about is just garbage.

              Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

              by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:16:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  If US is persecuting, he's safer in Sweden (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rei, Don midwest, Mindful Nature

          If the US were persecuting him, he would be best advised to travel post-haste to the Swedish Embassy and surrender.  The US federal prison system is not as humane as Sweden's, and his sentence would not be four years.

          "Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage." -- Lucille Ball

          by Yamaneko2 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:18:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Being persecuted (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Unduna, Ginny in CO, Matt Z

          is not a carte blanche to commit other crimes.  

          sorry, but no.

          Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

          by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:04:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  i'm with you on this. (10+ / 0-)

        Rape is rape regardless of the identity of the victim and the accused.  Objectivity requires facing the facts about this particular case.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:42:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think the UK ruling, given the ability of the (6+ / 0-)

        two governments to work in concert to carry out various levels of 'extraordinary renditions', should be dismissed as legitimate.

        Having said that, how common is it for the Swedish government to go to this extreme to find and extradite suspects? If it's extremely uncommon, then there's an ulterior motive, presumably, pressure from U.S. security services.

        And, IMHO, if that's the case, this is more about the U.S. calling in favors in an effort to get their hands legally on Assange then it is about the Swedish government seeking justice.

        So yes, he should face the charges, and yes, I'm sure just about every one on this site sides with the victim, but to dismiss the implications of an overreaching and overbearing secret security arm of the U.S. in an effort to squelch powerful voices of dissent is frankly, scary.

        Why can't they hold a trial in absentia? If he's found guilty, then there will be a jail cell waiting for him. If he's found not guilty, or there seems reasons for the judge to dismiss, then that will be that.

        BTW, what ever happened to Anonymous? Seems to me they've been awful quiet lately. Is or has the long arm of the U.S. security apparatus shut them down or have some been renditioned in secret? How can we ever know with this government of ours.

        Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

        by Pescadero Bill on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:21:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  anonymous is still around (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rb608, Pescadero Bill

          i think the media just got bored with them.

          I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

          by terrypinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:24:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Why can't they hold a trial in absentia?" (6+ / 0-)

          A pesky thing called "Swedish law"  ;)

          •  Rei, aside from all the legal confusion (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            white blitz, Unit Zero, cfm

            and interference with your basic point, I'm glad you have been able to add to the very real, underlying problem.

            That men, women, and society still have trouble understanding that

            No means STOP - or you are going from consensual sex to assault or rape depending on the local laws.

            Another aspect of the underlying problem is getting people to really put the psychological and emotional components of sex as the major component they are.

            I would like to see sex and sexuality education at 5th to 8th grade levels be clear that sex can be psychologically devastating - even when you agreed to it. Especially for women.

            Experiences like that make later experiences more difficult to accept or define as crossing the line into rape or sexual assault.

            Both sexes need to understand that whether the exact conditions of the rape laws are met, the person who feels violated is going to have mental health issues. If this occurs between partners who have a committed relationship, it seriously erodes the trust essential to those relationships. Marital rape was long considered an oxymoron. It is very strange to me that some still hold a very similar notion about casual sexual relationships.

            Anyway, glad to see you are on the healing path - it is definitely the journey that starts with a first step.

            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

            by Ginny in CO on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:52:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Asked and answered. I'll sheepishly bow out now. (0+ / 0-)

            :-)

            Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

            by Pescadero Bill on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:59:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Does Sweden... (3+ / 0-)
      That makes everyone Sweden's pawn, though
      Does Sweden have a long, rich history of charging internationally controversial figures with rape as a means to get them extradited?

      Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

      by TooFolkGR on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:41:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are seeking Assange for questioning (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dauphin, native

      He has not been charged with a crime nor threatened with being charged if he appears.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:14:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  then they should accept a video chat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        it is just questions right?

        •  That is one possibility (0+ / 0-)

          If it is acceptable under Swedish law (something I don't know).

          Another would be for investigators to question him in the UK.

          But this is not the position his lawyers have taken; rather, they  have challenged the basis of the extradition on legal grounds and finally, failed to convince the court.

          And as Assange has now chosen to take refuge from the court, he is in contempt and would presumably be arrested and returned to Sweden if he chose to leave the embassy or was expelled, so the point is moot.

          Most likely he will be granted asylum although where (remaining in the embassy or given passage to leave the UK) becomes a matter of diplomacy should that come to pass.

          Fortunately for Assange, he is lucky to be Teflon coated, at least so far.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 02:47:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Makes everyone living in Sweden a pawn, maybe: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gator Keyfitz, sk4p

      if you don't want to be subjected to Swedish law, don't live there; if you don't like the UK's extradition laws, don't live there either.  

      Oh, and by the way, if you don't like Ecuador's laws, don't go there for asylum.

      Romney is campaigning to be President SuperBain; his cure is to cut wages, end pensions, let companies go bankrupt, and let the assets of production go dark or be sold to China. He really thinks thats the best of all possible Americas.

      by Inland on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:14:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What did the UK do about Pinochet? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        white blitz, for 6 too

        Or is being guilty of genocide a lesser crime than alleged rape?

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

        by PatriciaVa on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:24:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe Assange should have tried that defense (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PatriciaVa

          to extradition.  Because what the UK did with Pinochet for extradicti to Chile is basically a get out of jail free card for everyone who is sought by Sweden.

          Romney is campaigning to be President SuperBain; his cure is to cut wages, end pensions, let companies go bankrupt, and let the assets of production go dark or be sold to China. He really thinks thats the best of all possible Americas.

          by Inland on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:33:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure I follow your reasoning (0+ / 0-)

      Pawn? Catch-22?

      No. First, at this point Assange is not being charged, Sweden is seeking to question him in an investigation that might result in him being charged but that is not a forgone conclusion, and in fact, quite the opposite is the case:  they are trying to get his side of the story.

      This is quite normal; often persons are sought for questioning, typically laws allow investigators or officers of the court to compel it, and it is simply part of legal process and "due process" in the event one is charged.

      Second, in the case this requires extradition it is not exercised with impunity, but requires a legal process to justify reasonable cause why someone should be compelled to appear, and it has most certainly been the case with Assange who has be litigating it for more than a year (and free with the constraint he not leave the UK), finally exhausting legal remedy.

      As a result of this process the court ruled he should be extradited on the basis of the evidence and arguments presented.

      Is it that you do not accept rule of law, which ultimately, gives courts the power to make decisions and rulings?

      What is so special about Julian Assange that he should be above the law?

      BTW, Assange certainly has the right to seek asylum under International Law, whether it will be granted or not and the ultimate consequences remains to be seen.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 03:49:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for writing this. (29+ / 0-)

    I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

    by terrypinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:07:58 AM PDT

  •  As to this... (50+ / 0-)
    The most troubling part of the story for me, however, is the main argument of his defense, and of many of his defenders on the internet: that the girls waited "days" before levying charges and only did so after talking with each other.  
    I am sitting in the courtroom waiting to hear the closing arguments in the Jerry Sandusky trial.

    This is the EXACT same argument his defense is making-only in this case, some of the victims waited YEARS.

    It doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"- MLK

    by SwedishJewfish on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:10:26 AM PDT

    •  Of course not. (14+ / 0-)

      But people - Michael Moore included, if memory serves (I'd have to check Tiger Beatdown's archive) - pretty much stated outright that the two were CIA plants, evoking a shadowy conspiracy.

      Which was an incredibly shitty thing to do, since they had their full names outed. Since women in the public sphere tend to receive way more death and rape threats than men, that did put the women's lives at risk.

      No, the Assange trial wasn't progressives' finest moment.

      Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

      by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:17:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Question on Sandusky's victims: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      codairem, Rizzo, for 6 too

      Did they invite Sandusky to live in their residence after the abuse?

      Did they arrange a conference where Sandusky would be a featured speaker?

      Did they throw parties for Sandusky after the abuse?

      Did any of them work for U.S. government intelligence agencies and was Sandusky an "enemy" of the U.S. Government for exposing it?

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the answer to the above is No.  

      From what I've read, the victims seemed to indicate a distinct desire to not be around Sandusky unless they had to.  I don't recall any of them eagerly desiring his company, throwing parties, or arranging conferences for him.

      The 1% Feast on Results while the 99% Starve on Rhetoric They Can Believe In.

      by Johnathan Ivan on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:06:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is the worst of the stuff (21+ / 0-)

        The smearing of the victims.  This is why people are so hesitant to bring up charges, for fear of people like you.

        Heck, the counters to what you're writing were in the very diary you're replying to.

        One of her friends, "Monica", later told police that during the party Miss A had told her about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. 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."

        ...

        On Sunday 15 August, Monica told police, Miss A told her that she thought Assange had torn the condom on purpose. According to Monica, Miss A said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept" and she did not feel safe.

        ...

        On Wednesday 18 August, according to police records, Miss A told Harold and a friend that Assange would not leave her flat and was sleeping in her bed, although she was not having sex with him and he spent most of the night sitting with his computer. Harold told police he had asked Assange why he was refusing to leave the flat and that Assange had said he was very surprised, because Miss A had not asked him to leave. Miss A says she spent Wednesday night on a mattress and then moved to a friend's flat so she did not have to be near him. She told police that Assange had continued to make sexual advances to her every day after they slept together and on Wednesday 18 August had approached her, naked from the waist down, and rubbed himself against her.

        And that's just one of the victims.  And what you're doing is horribly offensive, for the reasons I outlined in my diary.
      •  It doesn't matter (12+ / 0-)

        It doesn't matter what their behavior was afterwards.  And yes, some of the victims remained in contact with him and continued to go to football games with him (although with other people around so they felt protected). But the behavior of the victim after the rape is not the question, nor does it change the fact of whether rape occurred.  

        "The governor and journalist exhange a judas kiss/and now before the song is done, the plot begins to twist"

        by Avilyn on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:33:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They were 8-12 year old boys so no (9+ / 0-)

        they did not invite him to speak at conferences, or throw parties for him.

        But many of them did continue to stay in touch with him for years, sent him fathers day cards, went out to dinner and to football games with him, borrowed his car, not to mention the fact that they continued to go spend the night at his house and didn't say anyhing when the abuse was occurring.

        I was raped (and battered) by an ex boyfriend and continued to date him on and off for almost 2 years afterwards.

        It is very common for abuse victims to remain in contact, even friendly, with their perpetrator-especially if they had an established relationship with them prior to when the assault occured.

        "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"- MLK

        by SwedishJewfish on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:03:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If this matters (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SwedishJewfish, Renee, Matt Z

        then it is a matter for trial.  Pure and simple.

        If there's nothing to the charges, then there'll be no conviction.

        Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

        by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:11:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SwedishJewfish

      I think people should take pause when they notice whose words they are echoing.  

      Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

      by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:10:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a ... (21+ / 0-)

    Strong diary because you present a strong personal point of view.

    I really appreciate your bringing this up and support this!

    All the suffering of this world arises from a wrong attitude.The world is neither good or bad. It is only the relation to our ego that makes it seem the one or the other - Lama Anagorika Govinda

    by kishik on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:22:04 AM PDT

  •  I don't automatically side with the (46+ / 0-)

    'victim', for reasons of my own past involvement as the prime suspect in a crime that never happened, when the 'victim' was merely lying to authorities to cover up for separate misdeeds her boyfriend had perpetrated.  She lied successfully enough that it was almost a year before the lies unraveled, and everyone finally knew that I had never even met her.

    Well, actually, very few people knew, of course, because even though there was media attention given to the original lies, no one bothered when the retractions came so much later.  My reputation was damaged simply to protect the criminal acts of another, by the 'victim'.

    So I side with the justice process, not with 'victim' or 'perpetrator' - because you don't always know who the liar is, unless you're one of the two involved.

  •  I hadn't realized the connection until last night. (21+ / 0-)

    I've been writing diaries about Military Sexual Trauma (MST) and trying to highlight the film that comes out tomorrow, The Invisible War. I hadn't realized how much our society falls back on the two sides to the story meme and how that often means that the accused never end up in court where a judge and jury can make the call. Somewhere in the background, other folks are making those decisions and I see it as a serious problem.

    I recced this because I think we don't talk about these issues enough. I have to admit, I have a hard time when I read the particulars of this case. And as I write down some of my comments, I delete them because they sound awful. Retraining ourselves to even discuss rape is going to be a long process.

    •  "two sides to the story meme" (0+ / 0-)

      You arent serious are you?  Of course there are two sides, do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt to the contrary?

      I would hate to have you on the jury of any of my friends of family accused of anything.

  •  Yes, the people who automatically champion (21+ / 0-)

    (their hero) Assange because "Sweeden allowed two people allegedly involved in terrorism to be rendered to Yemen, so Sweeden is just acting as the puppet of the US and therefore once Assagne steps foot in Sweeden he will be turned over to the US where he will be tortured because Bradley Manning is being tortured" are not lot different from the people who automatically assume that their hero (Sandusky) is just being prosecuted because of a conspiracy of money hungry disturbed young men who have trumped up the charges for fame and profit.  At least Sandusky is standing trial and a jury will determine whether that is true or not. Mr. Assagne has spent a lot of time and money trying to avoid a fair hearing on whether or not these charges are politically motivated. It seems the rule of law should apply here as well. Let him submit to the law and argue his case there. If he won't I don't think the rest of the world should take a part in defending him no matter how much they respect him.

    “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

    by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:43:17 AM PDT

    •  I believe he is innocent until proven guilty (6+ / 0-)

      I believe that if I was him I wouldn't be leaving the U.K. either given the U.S. animus against said person.

      "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

      by Sychotic1 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:22:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately the rule of law no longer seems (14+ / 0-)

      to apply once the US is involved.  The fact that so many people are either blind to this fact or willingly ignore it amazes me.  You do realize that your argument consists solely of the belief that the legal system would never allow Assange to be extradited?  That seems to be a fairly naive belief to me given that this is the only time that Sweden has tried to extradite someone to charge them with rape.  Suddenly everyone cares about rape once an enemy of the state is charged with it.

      And none of that is to say that he should not be charged with rape.  He should be.  But pretending like everything that's happening is just because he doesn't want to be charged with rape, or that most of the people braying for his prosecution really care about rape, is absurd.  Of course, people here are rightly worried that a rapist might go free, but the US government and most of the press could care less if a woman gets raped.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:42:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  About a thousand European Arrest Warrants (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stellaluna, Unduna, Gator Keyfitz, Matt Z

        are issued in the EU every month, mostly for things much smaller than rape.  Please stop acting like this is unheard of.

        And none of that is to say that he should not be charged with rape.  He should be.
        There is no legal option for that other than for him to go to Sweden, which is why the extradition request was upheld.  All of this is proceeding according to the rule of law.
        •  So then we should just ignore the elephant in the (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          verso2, 4kedtongue, USHomeopath, for 6 too

          room?  The fact that governments don't care if men rape until they do something that actually threatens those governments.  We should just push that to the side and pretend like this is just a regular rape case and there's no chance of Assanged getting handed over to the US?

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:17:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i am curious then how it should be handled. (0+ / 0-)

            Do you think the US should give him immunity?  Or Sweeden declare that years of cooperation between the two countries is over?  I might be in favor of that. It would really put Assagne in the position of having to defend his behavior without the ability to deflect the focus.

            “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

            by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:29:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think Sweden could promise not to extradite (6+ / 0-)

              him to the US for charges having to do with wikileaks. Not necessarily cutting ties to the US altogether.

              It would be nice to see a country set aside international politics in favor of justice for a woman or women who were raped.

              There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:11:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree this could be one resolution. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                But it would set an ugly precedent that any person who could claim political persecution could negotiate whether or not they were willing to stand trial on unrelated charges. Like I said earlier,my concern isn't so much Assange as it is what is created if we make exceptions for him

                “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

                by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:19:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  And I suppose it is an egg and chicken (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gator Keyfitz

        argument. But let me assure you that I did not suddenly care about rape just because Assagne is the target. It is a difficult question I agree. But to automatically dismiss the allegations of the alleged victims in Assange's case because of his notoriety in another area is the same as dismissing the charges against Sandusky because of his fame and position. Maybe the US would extradite him. I don't know. But before I agree we should ignore the allegations of the alleged victims and refuse to give them their day in court you'll need to convince me of more than just Bradley Manning, rendition the Government is mean and has secrets...also, too. I'm not being flippant but the arguments I've heard in favor of ignoring the rape allegations rely on a lot of conclusions being accepted as fact.

        “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

        by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:17:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't mean to imply you fell into the category (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          4kedtongue

          of only caring about rape now.  I know the majority of folks here at DailyKos do care about stopping rape.  I just meant to point out that a huge number of people are coming out as being virulently against rape when the perpetrator is someone who has done something they don't like.

          I'm torn about the extradition because of this.  He really does need to face prosecution for what he's done.  Ultimately I suppose it doesn't matter at all what I think about that because it isn't as if I'm going to stop the extradition or anything.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:24:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and I agree with you that there are no easy (0+ / 0-)

            answers. I personally don't care if he is ever prosecuted by the US. I'm OK with the publications of Wikileaks. But I also know some grunt level military personnel who are the ones whose lives are risked daily in these stupid wars. And I know a lot of moms whose children are there. So I recognize that we can't have so much "transparency" that it gets those men and women killed. I don't care about leaking information if it just embarasses the govt. but I do care if it has the potential to endanger someone. I guess I do think the government has the need to prosecute on occasion. But maybe not Assange. There still needs to be a way to address the allegations. I suspect Assagne still wouldn't cooperate. He would be a fool to let it go forward so long as he can use his status to avoid the prosecution.

            “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

            by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:41:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Sandusky (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      for 6 too

      has not been the target of legal and extralegal persecution by the United States Government.

      all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

      by happymisanthropy on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:46:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So far as I understand (0+ / 0-)

        no charges have been filed here either, since the GJ is still working.

        Man, this argument is incredibly full of logical holes.

        Courtesy Kos. Trying to call on the better angels of our nature.

        by Mindful Nature on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:17:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Except Sandusky's entire defense is that he is (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SwedishJewfish, Matt Z, susans

        being illegally and unfairly persecuted by government agents who are over-zealous in their attempts to make a case against him. And that the victims themselves are falsely accusing him because of his notoriety. Obviously the details are different but most people aren't willing to decline to prosecute Sandusky just because he can make the case that the prosecution and underlying facts are related to non-judicial motives rather than the search for truth. So I believe the diarist's premise  as I understand it--that a community that is usually supportive of rape accusers, is less supportive because of their support for Assange on an unrelated issue. Just like the fans of Sandusky, who normally don't condone child rape, are willing to pre-judge against the accusers just because of their own feelings about Sandusky.

        “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

        by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:30:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  but there's a difference (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          for 6 too

          between a claim and a fact.

          It's a fact that the US government has used extralegal powers to try to shut down Wikileaks.
          Any similar claim regarding Sandusky is unsupported by facts.

          all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

          by happymisanthropy on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:57:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But it is a fact that people have falsified (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound

            charges for either fame or profit. But that doesn't mean it happened in the Sandusky case. The mere possibility that that happened is not enough to be dismissive of the victims. It may be a fact that the US has used extra judicial means against wikileaks. That doesn't mean that we should suddenly ignore the accusations against Assange or encourage behavior that allows him to avoid accountability for his alleged actions. And if we do it because we "believe in" Assange or have pre-judged the motivations of the accusers we are acting just like the supports of Sandusky who also believe in him and think the victims have ulterior motives.

            “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

            by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:55:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              for 6 too

              I support the right of every accused person to vigorously attempt to avoid prison.  I do not expect anyone to waive extradition, forego bail, or testify against himself.

              all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

              by happymisanthropy on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:34:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm a defense attorney. So not only do I support (0+ / 0-)

                that right, I profit from it. But that doesn't change the fact that I don't think we should give Assange any kind of pass that we wouldn't give other men accused of rape.

                “You can only become truly accomplished at something you love. Don't make money your goal. Instead, pursue the things you love doing, and then do them so well that people can't take their eyes off you...” - Maya Angelou

                by stellaluna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:07:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Well it seems that now his adopted son (0+ / 0-)

          has come forward with accusations of molestation.

          Personally, I like the idea of trials in court with due process more than the court of public opinion.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:55:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not if you ask his attorney (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stellaluna

        that was basically the case he tried to make in his close today.

        "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"- MLK

        by SwedishJewfish on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:17:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "A person can do lots of good things and still (31+ / 0-)

    do something horrible." That's something we'd all do well to remember. The good things that a person has demonstrated are presented as evidence that they couldn't have done bad things or that overall he is a good person.

    Consider the ongoing Sandusky trial. Children couldn't bring themselves to tell because he was known as a such a good person, who would believe them? A wrestling coach witnessed something he thought was inappropriate, but KNEW it couldn't be `cause after all Jerry has a heart of gold. No one is pure good or pure evil. Even Hitler did some good deeds encouraging youth to live up to their full potential. Justification for good Germans to just go along and ignore (or refuse to believe) the evil.

  •  It clashes with the notion (18+ / 0-)

    people have about rapists that rapists cannot be "good" people, cannot do "good" things, that they must all be wretched creatures lurking in dark places.

    TreeClimber's coverage of the Sandusky trial talks about this problem extensively--most rapists won't even see what they've done as wrong. After all, they were entitled to their victim. After all, they didn't mean to hurt anyone, so what's the problem, right?

    Most of the time, not just SOME of the time, the rapist is the nicest person in the room. Sometimes, the rapist is someone you consider heroic. And they are.

    But they're still a rapist, too.

    It gives a lovely light.

    by CayceP on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:07:12 AM PDT

  •  Good Diary (17+ / 0-)

    Let the system work in Sweden - hardly a third world country - and we'll go from there. It's not like Assange won't be able to afford appropriate counsel to defend him.

    You can't cloak yourself in a shield of 'I'm a very important and persecuted truth teller ' - even if it's true - against charges that are not related to your truth telling.

    Power-Worshipping Fascist

    by campionrules on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:10:35 AM PDT

  •  I've been asking since day 1 (18+ / 0-)

    where is the concern for the alleged victims?

    Thank you for writing this diary.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:11:25 AM PDT

  •  It has been difficult watching people (21+ / 0-)

    defend Assange in this arena. He is clearly a pig, at best, when it comes to women.

    That's half the worlds population. A soldier for the greater good, as Assange sees himself, can not be both pig and soldier.

    His behavior and his mind set towards women has completely wrecked his goals and it has compromised what benefit his leaks could obtain.

    No one should get a pass acting like that. Assange has to pay the piper and I hope he does.

    Important diary.

    Vote Democrat! Because drinking piss is better than eating shit...

    by Tirge Caps on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:14:27 AM PDT

  •  This is what personalizing issues gets you. (18+ / 0-)

    I've been disappointed for a long time about the discussion surrounding the Wikileaks documents.  For about 48 hours, it seems, there was actual, meaningful discussion of what was in the documents and what they meant, and then the entire story became about the legal travails of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

    So now we get people throwing themselves into the breech on behalf of this creep, people who know better, because they've made the individual fate of Julian Assange their stand-in for a whole spectrum of issues.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:15:21 AM PDT

  •  I agree... (11+ / 0-)

    Let the system work....and if he is found not-guilty ...he is still not to be trusted:


    In December 2010, Israel Shamir, a WikiLeaks associate and an intimate friend of Julian Assange -- so close, in fact, that he outed the Swedish women who claim to be victims of rape and sexual assault by Assange -- allegedly travelled to Belarus with a cache of unredacted American diplomatic cables concerning the country. He reportedly met Lukashenko's chief of staff, Vladimir Makei, handed over the documents to the government, and stayed in the country to "observe" the presidential elections.
    When Lukashenko pronounced himself the winner on 19 December 2010 with nearly 80 per cent of the vote, Belarusians reacted by staging a mass protest. Lukashenko dispatched the state militia. As their truncheons bloodied the squares and streets of the capital, Minsk, Shamir wrote a story in the American left-wing journal Counterpunch extolling Lukashenko ("The president of Belarus ... walks freely among his people"), deriding the dictator's opponents ("The pro-western 'Gucci' crowd", Shamir called them),
    Assange initially rejected pleas to redact documents to protect sources. At an early meeting with international reporters in a restaurant he told them: " 'Well, they're informants,' he said. 'So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' There was, for a moment, silence around the table."

    Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

    by jiffypop on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:21:41 AM PDT

  •  But it's still no reason for international police (5+ / 0-)

    Whatever the merits of the claims are, what makes them unique is that they are being used to extradite Assange to the U.S. rape charges don't usually go straight to interpil.interpol

    •  By definition, it IS (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unduna, sarahnity

      This is a police matter spanning more than one nation. By definition "the international police" are involved.

      •  Do you know the last time Sweden used intepol (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        codairem, Don midwest, sk4p, 4kedtongue

        to extradite a rapist?

        Never.

        While there are too many supporters of Assange that try to explain away or straight up deny the fact that he most likely is a rapist the opposite is true of the people who attack him, most of them could care less about rape until it becomes a useful weapon to use against one of their enemies.

        There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:51:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am talking about the rape charges (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rei, Gator Keyfitz, Boris Godunov

          I do not give a shit is Mr Assange has other legal issues on his plate. That does not obviate his duty to face up to the rape charges.

          Does Mr Assange have the right to pursue his legal defense? Absolutely. It would seem he is doing just that. But at the end of the day, his US legal woes do not give him a "Get Out of Swedish Jail Free" card.

          As for the comment I responded to, it is silly to claim there is no role for "international police" in what is obviously an international police matter.

          •  If there is a role for international police in (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sk4p, native, for 6 too

            rape cases then why have they never been used before?  

            The point isn't that he shouldn't face up to rape charges, it's that he wil likely not just be facing rape charges if extradited.

            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:11:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh really? First time you say? (4+ / 0-)

              A quick google search after filtering out Assange's name says otherwise

              And not only is your claim "that he will likely not just be facing rape charges if extradited" wrong (it would involve flagrantly violating extradition law in one of the most high profile cases out there), but even if it were true, it should still not be a "get out of jail free for rape" card.

              •  I said Sweden, not interpol in general (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                for 6 too

                And I did a search too and didn't find anything.  I'll admit I might well be wrong.

                And I agree that it shouldn't be a get of of jail free card for rape.  He should face charges for raping two women.  What concerns me, and it seems like it should concern everyone who is worried about rape, is that governments suddenly care about rape when the perpetrator is someone they don't like.

                There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:28:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I've heard of rape cases before (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rei, Unduna, Gator Keyfitz

                  Decades earlier, in fact. I hear-tell rape crimes have been prosecuted even from before I was born.

                  Don't see rape laws as anything sudden at all.

                  Don't know what point you're hoping to make.

                  •  The point he made like 3 times now is ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    for 6 too

                    When has Sweden, not some other country, used Interpol, not some other method, to go after a rapist overseas?

                    It could be this is the first time a rapist has been wanted in Sweden but located elsewhere, but doesn't it strike you as a bit much of a stretch?

                    That's the whole problem here.  I don't see anyone at all saying "he shouldn't answer for the accusations of rape."  They are saying "The way in which this particular case is being pursued seems mighty unusual."

                    "A good president does what's possible and a great president changes what's possible." --sterno

                    by sk4p on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:28:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Unfortunately rape laws aren't the end of the (0+ / 0-)

                    If a man in the US did what Assange did in Sweden the likelihood of his prosecution is diminishingly small.  Sweden is one of the best set of anti-rape laws in the world and they are pretty good about prosecuting as well.

                    There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                    by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:24:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I doubt your claim is correct (0+ / 0-)
              why have they never been used before?
              I doubt Interpol has never dealt with a rape case in its near 100 years of existence. Despite the claims of random internet lay postings to the contrary.
              The point isn't that he shouldn't face up to rape charges, it's that he wil likely not just be facing rape charges if extradited.
              {shrug}
  •  You cannot see the forest thru the trees (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    for 6 too

    The "victim" here cuts both ways...

    We have a liar in this scenario; quite possibly more than two, and your asking me to consider the victim when no one knows exactly who the victim is-

    Facts-
    1./ Mr Assange exposed the corporate coup that is the USA via collateral damage posting...  USA were not the only countries exposed-  collateral damage was not a singular instance-

    2./ Many are dead including working journalists swiss cheesed by US military personnel with 35MM Cannons; and that is just in ONE scenario

    3./ Mr Assange is being charged with a sex crime AFTER all the evidence he has brought to lite against the most powerful and corrupt governments and their leaders-

    Oh I could go on with those facts above all AM-

    What was it you were attempting to ask me to consider?

    The victim(s)?  

    Okay; I will sincerely consider it, but first I must ask, which "Victim" that is not being considered should I decide to consider here?

    The dead ones or the live ones?

    Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

    by RF on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:32:55 AM PDT

      •  Which ones are not mutually exclusive? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        The dead ones or the live ones?  (victims)

        Your playing a dangerous game of "look over here" with souls departed...

        Tread with care...

        Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

        by RF on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:42:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not playing a game at all. (18+ / 0-)

          Whether a person commits rape or not has nothing to do with whether or not they also did the world a service by being a whistleblower and exposing war crimes.

          •  You call it a game? (0+ / 0-)

            Why don't you take your action out of a political blog diary and walk, ride or run over to the Sandusky proceedings and see if you cannot find some folks who are not considering the victims of Mr Sandusky, due to their blind faith in religion or religious institutions-   You know, the JoPa loving folks at Penn State ...  

            Ripe pickens for your game-

            One more time, I will state with sincerity which victims do you believe are being maligned here; the LIVE ones, the DEAD ones, the ones wielding false accusations and/or denials?

            Both?

            Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

            by RF on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:03:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think this is starting to get ridiculous, given (15+ / 0-)

              you were the one who called it a game and are now mad at me for mentioning what you were accusing me of in my denial of it.

              Let's just be clear, one more time: A person can be a rapist and a whistleblower, and assuming that women are lying about being raped just because you like a person for being a whistleblower is extremely offensive.

              The other alternative is that by being a whistleblower, a person can gain a free, unlimited license to rape.

            •  i'm curious (7+ / 0-)

              what part of:

              I'm not playing a game at all. Whether a person commits rape or not has nothing to do with whether or not they also did the world a service by being a whistleblower and exposing war crimes.
              did you not understand?

              I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

              by terrypinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:19:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which victim? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                for 6 too

                We know WikiLeaks exposed war crimes that remain condoned by judicial inaction...

                Do we know or have evidence in kind for the existing accusations.?.

                I understand the "game" being played here completely and will not just lemming lockstep-

                Does there exist definitive evidence of what you wrote?

                person commits rape
                Does there exist definitive evidence of murdered victims?

                Do you not understand the difference?

                Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

                by RF on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I understand the difference perfectly (7+ / 0-)

                  Here's what I'm not sure you understand: That Mr. Assange exposed American and allied war-crimes among other things is entirely and completely irrelevant to the fact that he has been accused of rape by two different women. This is what Rei is saying to you over and over again. This is not a hard distinction to make.

                  If there's a liar or two, a court will quickly figure that out, if charges are ever brought.

                  I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

                  by terrypinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:36:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  We cannot say, since there has to be (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  skohayes, Rei

                  a procedure, which includes a trial, to present and examine the evidence. Criminal procedure therefore has to move forward using lower evidentiary standrds than beyond reasonable doubt to be workable.

                  Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

                  by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:50:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If you were in part responsible (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    for 6 too

                    for evidence like "Collateral Damage" et al, and NONE of that clear and convincing evidence was being heard in any jurisprudence; yet some pliable folks expect that you should show up for accusations that aid you being rendered to the very entity you exposed?

                    The Reuters photographer taken down by a 35mm cannon would probably use much stronger language than I in exposing the game this diary is playing-

                    Again; which victim(s) should we be soapboxing for?

                    The live ones or the dead ones; Leave assange out of it; if you can-

                    Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

                    by RF on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:01:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Are you being deliberately obtuse? (5+ / 0-)

                      An alleged crime was committed in Sweden. The Swedish legal system responded as expected and began an inquiry. Since their law demands the accused be present before charges can be pressed, extradition was demanded. That, in itself, has nothing to do with the US' dysfunction in prosecuting its own war crimes.

                      As for being put at risk of bad things happening to the accused, that's a possibility in any criminal trial. In fact, it's the expected outcome of a guilty verdict. That's why we have institutes such as arrest and extradition. People tend not to submit to trial and possible sanction voluntarily.

                      In fact, it is you who is doing the despicable thing, dragging the dead here to somehow exonerate assange. Tell me, in your mind, how many reporters' deaths should I be able to reveal so I can be excused of rape for the good I do? One? Ten? Twenty? How about if I commit two rapes? A rape and a murder? What if I throw in some sadism as well?

                      See where your line of thought goes?

                      And no, you cannot separate Assange from the victims, since he is the suspected perpetrator of a crime. There is no crime without a perpetrator!

                      Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

                      by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:08:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  And since you asked which side I am on, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rei

                      I am on neither of those two sides. I am on the side of law. If Assange committed a crime, he should face sanction. If US soldiers committed them, they should, as well. Secondary disposition -> sanction, aas simple as that.

                      Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

                      by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:10:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  And therein lies the problem. (7+ / 0-)

              You assume that the women are lying, since, as Assange is a thorn in the US' side, this has to be a conspiracy to lay him low, right?

              Wrong. At the moment, we have accusations which several states and their legal sysems found credible. That is not something that can be assumed away with conspiracy-theoretic thinking.

              Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

              by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:24:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you find yourself doubting a rape victim (7+ / 0-)

                You'd better take a step back and go "Wait a minute, isn't this that deeply embedded societal prejudice thing that people are always talking about? Am I just perpetuating that, and in so doing, contributing to systemic misogyny?"

                "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                by McWaffle on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I don't assume anything- (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                for 6 too

                Which victims should we be soapboxing for?

                The dead ones or the live ones?

                Which victim(s) are real by definition and which ones are plausible via unproven accusations?

                Assange may be a victim here of cia prop; assange may be a rapist, victims may not be being completely considered, the latter I certainly agree and ask...

                Leave Assange out of it for a moment; ask and answer a very simple question-

                Which victims may not be being completely considered in this scenario; the dead ones or the live ones.?.

                Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

                by RF on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:36:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Which dead ones? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  terrypinder, Gator Keyfitz, Matt Z

                  The ones Assange revealed to the world? Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the case under examination. If a criminal offence has been committed, sanction should follow, period. There is no Mother Theresa-certified get out of jail card.

                  Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

                  by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:43:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  These dead ones- (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happymisanthropy

                    These dead ones

                    Have they had their day in court you demand?

                    Why should those who claim accusations against the person who created an entity with evidence of unjust death be heard first?

                    It has EVERYTHING to do with this diary soapboxing assange without seeing assange as the very same victim of character rape...

                    Lets deal with the evidence and accusations in the order committed...

                    I suppose we could just call US SOS office and ask that office to draft a letter stating that if Mr Assange answers the accusations in a manner consistent with folks who do not have a

                    certified get out of jail card
                    he will not be extradited in any preset or preconceived trap-

                    Evidence that contradicts the ruling belief system is held to extraordinary standards, while evidence that entrenches it is uncritically accepted. -Carl Sagan

                    by RF on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:30:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  What else is not mutually exclusive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        A person can want Assange to be forced to answer for any of the crimes he may have committed and STILL be concerned about having him whisked away to a black site where God knows what will be done to him because he was a whistle blower. Unfortunately my country has done some truly evil things in the name of national security.

    •  No, the issue is (7+ / 0-)

      EVERYBODY considers the consequences of Assange's actions--as long as they're dead. Nobody cares he's also a rapist, because as usual, bitches be crazy, lyin' n shit.

      It gives a lovely light.

      by CayceP on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:24:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's what trials are for (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, Rei, Unduna, Gator Keyfitz, Matt Z

      Real trials, not ones held in comments sections on web sites. Guess what? You are not the only one who understands criminal charges do not instantly equal guilt. That is why entire legal systems exist, to root out the truth.

      And even people named "Julian Assange" are not above these procedures.

  •  Compare attitudes toward Sandusky -- that was (6+ / 0-)

    a more extreme allegation (as it still remains), but there certainly hasn't been anyone around here defending him on the grounds that he was a good football coach.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:47:04 AM PDT

    •  There's a bit of a difference between being a good (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, for 6 too

      football coach and being responsible for the release of hundreds of thousands of secret files.  Not to mention that people tend not to dismiss child abuse charges in the same way they do rape charges, especially once the case goes to trial.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:56:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In the eyes of the law, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cartoon Peril, Unduna

        there is no difference between being a good football coach and being responsible for the release of hundreds of thousands of secret files when it comes to whether you're a sexual abuser.  Both have to stand trial, and whether or not there's a group of people who love you for what you've done, that doesn't make the accusations any less credible or serious, nor should it give you any form of "get out of jail" card.

        •  You really think that the law treats all rapists (0+ / 0-)

          equally?  Where do you live?  The rich and famous regularly get away with rape in the US.  It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:44:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There is no valid comparison (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril, Kamakhya, for 6 too

      on any level, with Sandusky.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:51:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  Because (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          for 6 too

          Jerry Sandusky is charged with raping llittle boys. And there is a growing mountain of evidence supporting the allegation.

          Jerry Sandusky does not have a foreign government waiting behind the shades to extradite him.

          Comparing the two is shameless hyperbole.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          by twigg on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:51:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And assange is charged with raping two women. (0+ / 0-)

            And if Sandusky did have a government wanting to extradite him, he should still be tried for rape.  He shouldn't get a "get out of rape free" card.

      •  Hmmm ... I'm saying the left may have a tin ear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi

        when it comes to the the allegations against Assange which they don't have when it comes to Sandusky.  Now the evidence looks rather more damning against Sandusky, and the allegations (as they still are until proven) are more serious.  

        But as of now any way (and this could change literally tomorrow), neither he nor Assange has been convicted of anything.  What REI is saying I think is that we've got a bit of a blind spot here and it's occasioned by our dislike of excessive government secrecy.

        You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

        by Cartoon Peril on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:47:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hard for some to realize that you can agree (23+ / 0-)

    to have sex with a man, but still be raped by him.

    Perhaps the character of the sex changes, and you want to stop.

    But you are not allowed to stop, a hand pressed tightly on the neck will shut you up. And force you to allow him to "finish."

    That is rape.

    Even if no-one believes you.

    This happened to me at age 19.

    Even if the man is a leftist, a socialist, a fellow worker, a democrat, an activist, it is still rape.

    Assange deserves no pass on rape.

    WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For May: Martyrs of the San Diego Free Speech Fight, Spring 1912.

    by JayRaye on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:57:09 AM PDT

    •  some variant of this situation happens (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rei, Gator Keyfitz, SwedishJewfish

      at some time to almost every woman. In the past, it wasn't considered "rape", but now it is. Our definition of rape is changing, that's your point, you want everyone to understand that it's rape when there is force, even after initial consent.

      I think it's a useful definition legally, and not only for the purposes of prosecution. It makes it clearer to both parties beforehand that rape = any level of force.

      Some men will use an unclear situation to push to their boundary of what they consider rape to be. Some women don't have the clarity to strongly say stop, I don't agree to this, this is rape.

      I've found that some of the "nicest" men view reluctance as something to be overcome. And some of the "most independent" women aren't really sure of themselves and how to get what they want out of a sexual situation.

      working for a world that works for everyone ...

      by USHomeopath on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:25:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thank you (4+ / 0-)

        In this case, there was no ambiguity, I clearly and strongly said stop. I was shut up thru near strangulation, strongly and clearly, a death threat.

        WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For May: Martyrs of the San Diego Free Speech Fight, Spring 1912.

        by JayRaye on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:54:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  PS There was one other time when I was (0+ / 0-)

          threatened with rape, but that time I had Ms Lady Smith with me, fully loaded.

          Is that clear and strong enuf for you?

          WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For May: Martyrs of the San Diego Free Speech Fight, Spring 1912.

          by JayRaye on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  that sounds really horrible, JayRaye... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayRaye, SwedishJewfish

          I just wanted to tell you that I'm sorry you had to go through that experience.  

          And I am glad that it sounds like you know it was absolutely NOT your fault.

          "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

          by Hopeful Skeptic on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:14:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  At the time, I definately thot it was my fault. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hopeful Skeptic, SwedishJewfish, Rei

            But that was many years ago.

            Since then, my attitude has changed significantly, and I've learned self-defense, with and without a weapon.

            And thank you, Hopeful Skeptic, for your kind words.

            WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For May: Martyrs of the San Diego Free Speech Fight, Spring 1912.

            by JayRaye on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:23:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you're welcome. So glad that time has been (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JayRaye, Rei

              healing for you, and your perspective has changed.  

              You sound like an amazingly strong woman.  

              "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

              by Hopeful Skeptic on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:32:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Of the three things you wrote... (4+ / 0-)
        Some women don't have the clarity to strongly say stop, I don't agree to this, this is rape.
        ... the last one is much harder to say than the first two.

        And the funny thing is how I kept trying different wording, as though that was the problem...  Probably the most elaborate was "I told you no earlier and I'm still telling you no!"  Most were just a couple words, though.

  •  Thank you for this. (11+ / 0-)

    I didn't write anything in the last diary, since I was late to the party, but this shit - insisting Assange not be extradited - follows the same dynamic as the PSU abuse scandals or the little pecadilloes of certain prists of the Catholic Church: In both cases, partisans either denied those honourable men were capable of such vile acts or wanted to sweep everything under the rug. For a good cause, of course.

    Another good example is is the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. Even before trial, everyone "knew" he was guilty, court proceedings where that accusation would be examined be damned. Of course, since we consider managing directors of the IMF to be rather despicable creatures, it was easy to assume that, wasn't it?

    In short, no matter the side, left, right, religious, atheist, whatever: When luminaries on our side are accused of doing something naughty, we will do our utmost to deny it, all our high principles conveniently forgotten or rationalised away. Sometimes I think we need a good look in the mirror.

    Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

    by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:09:55 AM PDT

  •  I've learned recently (12+ / 0-)

    because of the whole ElevatorGate fiasco (some may recognize it from other intersecting spheres of the internet), there's a whole lot of closet misogynists. How are so many people attacking the victims here? Assange has some good qualities and has accomplished some positive things, but is an accused rapist and needs to be held accountable. All this victim-blaming and CT is no different from any other RW cesspool of a site downplaying sexual assault. We're supposed to be better than this.

    "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

    by McWaffle on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:21:52 AM PDT

    •  ElevatorGate was eyeopening (10+ / 0-)

      and disturbing. I've had to reevaluate how I think about a good number of bloggers I used to follow because of it.

      I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

      by terrypinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What was ElevatorGate, please? n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe

        Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

        by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:39:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The short version (5+ / 0-)

          is at a Skeptics convention, a woman skeptic was propositioned for sex in an elevator late at night by another conference attendee. She didn't know him. She wrote about it, and it's ballooned into a really ugly and eye-opening thing.

          I've followed it from the sidelines, McWaffles may know a lot more.

          I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

          by terrypinder on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:43:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Something that exposed a huge number (7+ / 0-)

          of raving misogynists in the online atheist community and lead to a huge flamewar and people taking sides. It's a long long story. In summary, a respected female atheist gave a talk at a conference about how women at such conferences feel uncomfortable because they are constantly the target of unwanted sexual advances. Later that night (4am) she was hit on in an elevator. There was no assault, but she used the story anecdotally to say "this is what I mean, don't do this" and then the internet exploded with people saying "OMG, HOW TO HAZ THE SECS NOW?" and throwing around some nasty slurs about her I'm sure you can guess about.

          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

          by McWaffle on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:44:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, yes, I can. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            terrypinder, McWaffle, Catte Nappe, Matt Z

            In fact, I've found that, after, say, 1 AM or about five drinks, whichever comes first, quite a few otherwise reasonable men turn into raving sexists and xenophobes. Jesus.

            But it is deeply ironic when a community which holds itself to be better than that melts down into a cesspit of misogyny.

            Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

            by Dauphin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:47:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's preciously it. Both sides claimed (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dauphin, terrypinder, Matt Z

              the vaunted mantle of "Reason", and it basically pitted the young-adult quasi-libertarian faction of the group against the generally-older (I think), politically liberal/socialist-leaning faction of the group.

              That was my take anyway. Luckily, I think the MRA types and their defenders have all been quarantined to a single blog that people can just easily avoid from here on out.

              "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

              by McWaffle on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:52:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The worst I got when talking about what (5+ / 0-)

              happened to me was this, from Slashdot:

              Bullshit - almost sounds to me like you were drugged up a bit and didn't have enough willpower to stop the guy. I'm sure you had multiple opportunities to hit him with something in his apartment over the head even just to disable him, run out, and call the police. You basically let the guy finger you and go from there. If you really thought you were being raped you could have screamed and screamed. You are just basically a confused slut and a whore who let some "cute" guy have his way with you.
        •  I'd heard only vaguely about it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          terrypinder

          Very thorough run down here:
          http://mg.co.za/...
          Wow.

          from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

          by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:04:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rarely does a blog community blow itself apart (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catte Nappe, terrypinder, Dauphin

            quite like that. It was outrageous. I'd suggest searching PZ's place for the relevant threads a few months ago at Pharyngula and then going to, I guess, ERV if you want the counterpoint, but to be fair the counterpoint is "He was probably aspergers and because of that unaccountable and  also she is a cold man-hating bitch and women should be glad I hit on them and if they aren't how can I possibly ever have sex with them?"

            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

            by McWaffle on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:08:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What I never understood (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dauphin

              Is how "he might have had Asperger's" translated to "you have to let him follow you into an elevator at 4:00 am and be nice to him even though you feel threatened and had already turned him down."  It was appalling.

  •  Why hasn't Assange resigned from Wikileaks? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    white blitz, erush1345

    This has been going on for more than a year, you would think he would put a statement about resigning or at least temporarily stepping away from Wikileaks.  

    Because this has and will continue to damage the reputation of Wikileaks, whether Assange is guilty or not.  

    Or is Wikileaks really just a one-man operation?  Will Wikileaks just devolve into the "Julian Assange Defense Fund"?

    Maybe he is guilty, maybe he's innocent.  But we know one thing, Assange is guilty of being a sexist asshole:

    http://feministing.com/...

  •  The alleged rape victims (1+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    joshd
    Hidden by:
    SwedishJewfish, auron renouille, sviscusi

    do not seem, to me, entirely trustworthy. And this story is about much more than rape, whether rape actually happened or not. Please read Pepe Escobar's take on it:

    http://www.atimes.com/...

    "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into." - Oliver Hardy

    by native on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:26:15 AM PDT

  •  Thats...a really weird story. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, sk4p

    Sex is a subject quite alien to me, (I'm asexual, i have no desire for it and have no idea why people make a big deal about it.) so I tend not to comment on these things. Its rare i contribute anything meaningful.

    But that entire story is weird as hell. I am not saying who is right or wrong or anything, because I really don't know. the whole thing sounds insane, but again, insane things do occur and rarely seem insane as they are ongoing. I do sincerely hope all truth comes to light and the issue can be resolved.

    All I want to say is, that I think its important to assume that at least as far as the people on this site we concerned, everyone is honest in their positions. Disagreements happen, but we needn't come to blows. That helps no one.

    Are treatment radical such of effects term long the what sure be can't we, naturally. Charge no.

    by kamrom on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:32:15 AM PDT

  •  Interpol's aggressive involvement (7+ / 0-)

    ..suggests that something else entirely is going on here.

    Assange's case can't be compared with Sandusky or  Strauss-Kahn because their power and positioning made them more impervious to charges. Assange is the opposite--he's a political target of the powerful.

    This reminds me of the "stand with the victims unless the perpetrator is Bill Clinton!" discussions of the 90's. Clinton may have been guilty, but the legal crusade against him supposedly on behalf of women in had nothing to do with protecting women, but punishing Clinton for political purposes.

    If Assange is extradited to Sweden, he won't make it to trial. He'll disappear into a dark hole forever. (Or a conviction will be used to effect that end.) None of it will be about justice for the women charging him.

    If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

    by rhetoricus on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:39:56 AM PDT

    •  So because the governement has malicious intent, (5+ / 0-)

      screw caring about the women involved here? I don't see how that's logical.

      •  If only ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rhetoricus, for 6 too

        ... if Sweden's position on extradition to the US was "the US can go jump in a lake", I think each and every one of us would support his going to Sweden and standing trial.

        I don't know that the Swedish government has malicious intent.  It probably doesn't.  The US is another matter entirely.  And that's where the ambiguity comes from in many people's minds.

        "A good president does what's possible and a great president changes what's possible." --sterno

        by sk4p on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:33:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's a matter of degree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        As SO many other people have said, if turning him over to the US were ruled out by Sweden, everyone would support Assange standing trial for his alleged crimes against these women.

        However, even if guilty, Assange does not deserve what would be in store for him if the US got ahold of him.

        If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

        by rhetoricus on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:11:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, to analogize: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auron renouille, Unduna

          Guido double-crosses the mob and rats mob members to the police.  Mob members go to jail.  Mob members in jail are mad at him and want revenge.  Guido is still out on the street.  But now multiple courts are convinced that Guido has gone and raped someone while he's free.  Does he get to avoid going to trial for rape because there's mob members in jail who want to kill him?

          The rape charge is completely independent of everything else, and nobody should be above the law, even if other nations are doing things that are unfair to the individual.

          And, FYI, the UK would have to clear any extradition from Sweden to the US before he could be extradited a second time.  So as it stood before the charges, if the US wanted him, the UK alone would have had to extradite him; but now, if he went to Sweden and was charged, two nations would have to clear his extradition.  

          •  Are "multiple courts convinced" (0+ / 0-)

            that Assange raped someone? Did I miss that? Wow, that's unprecedented, given that at this point it's he-said, she-said and no trial has occurred.

            And I can't imagine the UK conspiring with the US government to torture politically inconvenient people. Who has ever heard of such a thing?

            And yes, governments do have a responsibility for the safety of accused people in custody. And as much as the US government acts like a mafia, it cannot act on its own on Swedish soil.

            As you say, Sweden has absolute control over whether Assange gets extradited. All Sweden has to do is publicly guarantee that regardless of the outcome of his trial, Assange will not be turned over to get the Jose Padilla treatment. Then no one would object to his being remanded to Sweden to face charges. Until then, your claim to be concerned about "justice" and "law" is hollow in context. An accused person cannot ethically be turned over to a "justice" system that has no regard for human rights or the rule of international law which prohibits torture.

            If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

            by rhetoricus on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:22:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are convinced that the charges are credible. (0+ / 0-)

              The British lower court deemed that, the British upper court upheld it, and obviously the Swedish system is pursuing the charges.  He hasn't been convicted, but the charges have been deemed credible.

              And I can't imagine the UK conspiring with the US government to torture politically inconvenient people. Who has ever heard of such a thing?
              Well, then you better advise Assange to head to Sweden post-haste!
              As you say, Sweden has absolute control over whether Assange gets extradited.
              That is precisely the opposite of what I said.
              An accused person cannot ethically be turned over to a "justice" system that has no regard for human rights or the rule of international law which prohibits torture.
              Sweden has one of the most respected justice systems on the planet.
              •  Um, no. (0+ / 0-)

                A court deeming charges credible enough to escape outright dismissal hardly equals "convinced Assange raped someone." Otherwise, why bother with a trial? Apparently accusation alone is enough, in your world.

                Sweden has one of the most respected justice systems on the planet.
                Sweden's justice system isn't the one to which I refer.

                You sound 100% convinced that there is no way on earth that Assange would or could be handed over to the USA. Odd that neither the UK nor Sweden will simply make that public assurance, if it's all so obvious. It would remove a lot of the public's concern for Assange.

                If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

                by rhetoricus on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 12:40:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  That's what really sucks about these charges (0+ / 0-)

      We doubt that he would be prosecuted if he weren't the new enemy #1. It is far more likely Sandusky would have been stopped if he had been less well known. Justice should be blind. All victims deserve justice no matter who their attackers are.

  •  Seems to me two sides are talking past each other (6+ / 0-)

    The Assange sympathizers believe the charges are likely false and simply a pretext to extradite him to the U.S. Against this view, making the argument (however compellingly) that rape allegations in general should be taken seriously isn't necessarily going to have much effect.

    Assange could be accused of fraud, murder or some other crime and people might believe the whole thing was a setup designed to let the U.S. suck him into a legal black hole. It's not such a crazy thing to believe, given the timing of the allegations and some of the rather nefarious actions of the U.S. revealed in the Wikileaks cables themselves (such as Hillary Clinton directing state department employees to obtain DNA samples from U.N. diplomats).

    It's a difficult issue but I don't think it's fair to accuse people of lack of understanding or indifference to rape victims because they happen to be suspicious of these particular charges. The nature of the (alleged) crimes are somewhat immaterial to whether you personally believe the whole thing is a pretext/setup.

    •  No. Many "sympathizers" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rei, happymisanthropy, WisePiper

      like myself, like Glenn Greenwald and others, have repeatedly and explicitly said we have no opinion on the truth or falseness of these allegations.

      “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:16:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Saying that you think the whole thing (3+ / 0-)

      is a pretext or a setup = saying the victims are lying.

      There's no other way to translate that.

      •  Well, they could be lying (4+ / 0-)

        I don't understand why one should automatically "stand with the victim" in a case where you are relying on the contradictory accounts of different people. And that holds true regardless of the nature of the crime.

      •  I think they wouldn't be prosecuting him for this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rei, for 6 too

        if we didn't want to get him for that. Doesn't make it right. These women deserve to be taken seriously no matter what crimes other countries want to charge him with.

      •  Yes there is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dfarrah, for 6 too

        I "believe the charges are likely false and simply a pretext to extradite him".

        That is a probability statement. "The victims are lying" is a statement of fact. Do you know the difference? You've translated it from one kind of statement into an entirely different kind of statement. You'd have been better off not "translating".

        Btw, your incorrect translation is also self-contradictory. If the "victims are lying" they aren't "victims". They're victimizers. You make this mistake because you believe anyone accused of rape (or "rape") is guilty, or at least guilty until proven innocent, and want us to adopt this mode of thinking (at least when the accused is Julian Assange).

    •  In addition (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, for 6 too

      I could make an argument that the US had a hand in the allegations for the purpose of discrediting Assange.  As has been seen in this diary, people have a visceral reaction to rape accusations.  Far more damning in some respects than a murder or fraud accusation.  It makes no difference now whether he is ever convicted or not of the charges, Assange will be forever linked with the rape accusation.

    •  Alternatively (0+ / 0-)

      they could simply be saying they'd be fine with him facing trial for rape, and the penalties associated thereto, but don't feel he should be treated as a terrorist, and don't trust the Swedes to not simply hand him off to the US, which turns it into a bit of a Gordian knot, because no one knows for sure whether he would be.   I see both sides easily enough, but I wouldn't say that not wanting to see him punished for something people around here don't feel he deserves (espionage) implies that they automatically believe he did or didn't commit rapes separately.

      I actually think that casts even more lack of clarity on things though, because it means that the idea that 'People on Daily Kos aren't standing with the (alleged) victims' isn't necessarily correct either.  Some may (based on comments above) truly believe that the allegations are false, and made solely for political maneuvering, but others may believe he is or could be a rapist, but still feel he would be in danger of undeserved espionage charges were he to show up for trial.

      It's a sticky situation, as witness the oft-heated arguments in the comment threads here.

  •  Let's not forget... (8+ / 0-)

    That one of the accusers also (as a coincidence) worked for a U.S. government intelligence agency, I believe.

    But that to me isn't the most relevant facts.

    To me, the most relevant fact is:

    Neither woman made any attempt whatsoever to distance herself from Assange.  

    Continue living in my residence?

    No problem.

    Host a conference for you?

    No problem.

    Throw a party for you?

    No problem.

    And - here's the kicker - isn't it amazing, nay shocking, to what lengths the countries involved are going to obtain "justice"?

    I'm sorry but I'm not buying this.  There is no way under the sun that I would expect a victim of rape - who has her own place, continues to share it with the aggressor, throws a party for him, hosts a conference for him...

    That does not add up.

    They weren't married.  They didn't have some long-term relationship which would compel her to maintain a status-quo.  There were no real factors involved that would cause her to continue co-habitating, sleeping in the same bed, throwing a party, hosting a conference.

    I'm not buying.

    The 1% Feast on Results while the 99% Starve on Rhetoric They Can Believe In.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:56:45 AM PDT

    •  And wasn't he cleared of the charges (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      for 6 too

      and allowed to leave the country before the accusations were mysteriously reasserted?

      Did the people who let him off the first time receive any punishment for their supposed negligence?

      You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

      by Johnny Q on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:18:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't agree with your premise (8+ / 0-)

    that the "talk here generally ignores the victims".  I, for one, certainly don't dismiss these allegations as trivial.

    But I can't ignore the fact that Mr. Assange has made himself some extraordinarily dangerous enemies, including our own government which hs shown itself willing to behave in extraordinarily reprehensible, indeed criminal, ways when it comes to dealing with perceived enemies.

    You say that "suspects cannot dictate the terms of their questioning" as if that completely settles the issue, but it does not.  You may dismiss Mr. Assange's fears of falling into US hands as nonsense, but others do not - and that does not mean we don't care about the allegations against him.  

    You dismiss the "skype interview" without mentioning that there have been other suggestions including an in-person interview on British soil.  The point being that in the face of extraordinary circumstances there needs to be some willingness to accommodate the concerns of the other party.  It seems to me that if the only interest is finding the truth and achieving justice, an attitude of "the prosecutor em>can be a hard-ass so therefore nobody gets to complain about that" is seriously counter-productive.

    “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:14:29 AM PDT

    •  Whether or not you make dangerous enemies (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gator Keyfitz, Remembering Jello

      doesn't mean you get a free pass to ignore first-world judicial processes when the legal systems in two separate first-world countries have determined that there are serious and credible charges against you.

      Suspects  cannot dictate the terms of their questioning.  That's not a debatable point; it's a fact.  And as was well-covered, and just ignoring the "dictating terms", the whole point of the questioning is to file charges, which can only be done on Swedish soil.  So again, it's a pointless suggestion.

      •  How many times must I ask you not to put (4+ / 0-)

        words in my mouth?

        I've never argued for a "free pass."

        I've argued that extraordinary circumstances are worthy of some accommodation in the interest of finding the truth and getting justice.  Why is that so unacceptable that you must repeatedly misrepresent my argument in your replies?

        “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:46:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What is extraordinary is how many people (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rei

          Automatically believe that because the government of Sweden engaged in extraordinary rendition several years ago at the behest of the United States in regard to accused terrorists plotting against America, they will do so again in the case of someone accused of violating their own laws.  

          •  Well I don't "automatically believe" that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BradyB, for 6 too

            I just think Julian Assange isn't entirely irrational in having that fear.

            “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:52:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is not the impression I've gotten (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Unduna, Rei

              from most of the posters on this matter...and regardless, the smearing of the alleged victims is revolting.

              •  You know what ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                for 6 too

                I have read most of the comments in this Diary.

                The problem here is that the Diarist set the tone by writing a hatchet job about one side of the case. That was not fair, and it was not just.

                WHile I deplore any and all attempts to smear the two women in this case, we also owe the same duty of care to the man standing accused off rape by the Diarist.

                I put it that way simply because no one else has filed any charges ... and certainly not the Swedish Authorities.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                by twigg on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:42:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  So they repeatedly say they want him for... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        questioning. But then you say the point of the questioning is to file charges. So they've already decided to file charges before even questioning the suspect or hearing his side of the story? Interesting. Why do you need the questioning then and why constantly say this is what you want when it is not? Seems like you'd want to do the questioning before making the decision to charge or not in such a case, especially when your first prosecutor decided that the allegations had no merit. Doesn't make much sense, like so much about the claims of the accusers and the actions of the prosecutors.

  •  I pretty much got off the Assange train (5+ / 0-)

    when he brought the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir on-board.

  •  Has the Swedish police charged him (0+ / 0-)

    regarding Miss A.'s allegations?  

    "There's no charges against him.  If they really wanted him, they'd charge him.": Swedish law prohibits raising charges not on Swedish soil against a subject who hasn't been given the opportunity to defend himself against the charges to be filed.
    .............................
    The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A. However, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly stressed that he denies any kind of wrongdoing in relation to Miss W.
    •  No, he is sought for questioning. (4+ / 0-)

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:41:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He was questioned concerning the (3+ / 0-)

        one alleged victim.

        The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A.
        •  That's why they wish to question him again (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doroma, koNko
          •  So they don't plan to charge him with anything (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            for 6 too

            regarding Miss A.  I see.

            •  No. That's why they wish to QUESTION HIM (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              koNko
              •  They did already. What? The law says several (0+ / 0-)

                times they have to question him before he gets charged?

                What was this?  

                The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A.
                •  Charges have to be filed in a timely manner (4+ / 0-)

                  after the questioning.

                  Also: Are people so unfamiliar with how criminal investigations work - not just in Sweden, but on essentially every country on the planet - not to realize that suspects often go through several rounds of questioning before charges are filed?

                  •  Still wondering where the time limit claim (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gooderservice, for 6 too, koNko

                    comes from.

                    “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:18:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Apparently, yes. (0+ / 0-)
                    Are people so unfamiliar with how criminal investigations work - not just in Sweden, but on essentially every country on the planet - not to realize that suspects often go through several rounds of questioning before charges are filed?
                    They "need several rounds" before they can charge him regarding the one alledged victim.  Got it.
                    •  I'm confused what you would prefer (3+ / 0-)

                      Would you rather that the criminal justice system just interviewed everyone involved once and only once before deciding whether or not to file charges?  

                      In a world where we have the following situation
                      Alleged victim: I was a victim of a crime!
                      Alleged perpetrator:  I didn't do it!

                      Which of the following responses would you prefer the police to take:
                      1.  Okey dokey, let's just file charges and let the courts work it out.
                      2.  Sorry, AV, we're not going to do anything more.  AP said it didn't happen and our hands are tied.
                      3.  Lets get some further details from each side, cross check the two conflicting tales and see whose story starts to fall apart under repeated questioning.

                      Personally, I prefer to live under system #3.

                      "Bad democrats are still better than the best republicans." - kos

                      by sarahnity on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:44:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh, please. It's a she said/he said. They (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        for 6 too

                        interviewed both people.  Either they're filing charges or they're not.  And I'm only speaking about the one alleged victim's allegations.

                        So much time has passed that there is no physical evidence.  Either they have a case or they don't.  

                        •  Nothing you just said (4+ / 0-)

                          Speaks to your original complaint that they authorities shouldn't need to interview an alleged perpetrator multiple times before deciding whether or not to file charges.  I'm guessing that's because even you realize that that position is patently absurd, and so it must be time to move the goalposts.

                          Sorry, but I don't play that game.

                          Regardless of your attempts to confuse the issues, it is perfectly reasonable that the authorities would like to re-interview a suspect multiple times before filing charges AND it is perfectly reasonable that these interviews take place in the same jurisdiction of the alleged crime.

                          "Bad democrats are still better than the best republicans." - kos

                          by sarahnity on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:01:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Both interviewees had different stories, obviously (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            for 6 too

                            Yeah, okay, sure, keep asking them the same questions over and over again and the she said/he said will change.  Right?  

                            I don't know what "game" you're talking about.

                            Sorry, but I don't play that game.
                            This is a serious allegation that was made.  The alleged victim and alleged perpetrator were interviewed.  Either the authorities have enough evidence to charge him or they don't.
                          •  Oh I see (4+ / 0-)

                            In your world, people never change their stories.  They say one thing once and well, that's it.

                            What a nice and simplistic world you inhabit.

                            Back here, in reality, things are messy.  People's stories change all the time.  Sometimes that means they were lying, sometimes it doesn't.  The police and prosecutors get to sort it all out  Multiple iterations of questioning of all parties often helps bring out the truth of the matter.

                            And for the record, the game I don't play is one where the goalposts are constantly shifting.   You implied that it was unreasonable for the authorities to want to interview a suspect multiple times before deciding whether or not to file charges.   That implication is absurd.

                            "Bad democrats are still better than the best republicans." - kos

                            by sarahnity on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:27:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've been looking and looking but haven't (0+ / 0-)

                            been able to find out exactly how many times the alleged victim was "interviewed.

                        •  Wow. Just wow. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Rei, koNko, sarahnity
                        •  Perhaps a more credible approach (3+ / 0-)

                          ... would be for you to say that regardless of his guilt or innocence in the matter, you consider it unimportant and that if he was returned to Sweden the risk he could face other proceedings initiated by other parties for whatever reasons is unacceptable to you because whatever Julian Assange does is OK with you.

                          It's a short putt to that from your comments here, so why not just say it?

                          What about my Daughter's future?

                          by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 02:23:29 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  If that is your theory, fine. (3+ / 0-)

                      But anyone remotely familiar with investigations and legal process would accept this without jumping to conclusions.

                      Clearly Assange was a protagonist in the events under investigation; whether the interview would implicate or exonerate him, or be inconclusive remains to be seen if and when it happens.

                      Change the name from Assange to Zimmerman or any other name of a suspect or witness, do you till apply the "more than one interview is a frame-up" rule?

                      Perhaps Zimmerman is innocent and Assange guilty. Or visa-versa. How is that determined?

                      By legal process, or speculation by bloggers?

                      Again, as I stated previously, so far Assange has been subject to fair and open due process and enjoyed the privilege of his personal freedom as the process has proceeded, something the average suspected rapist would not necessarily enjoy, so in fact, if a question of rights are involved it rather impossible to argue he has been denied his, which is why, I suppose, you find it necessary to resort to speculative arguments.

                      If he was being charged with a crime or handled with anything but kid gloves, he would probably have been behind bars without opportunity to walk into a embassy to request asylum and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

                      And by the way, it is often "several rounds" of questioning that exonerates people falsely accused of crimes.

                      What about my Daughter's future?

                      by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 02:11:39 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Criminal investigations often involve (0+ / 0-)

              Multiple interviews. But CT doesn't actually require any.

              What about my Daughter's future?

              by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 01:50:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  With all due respect.... (6+ / 0-)

    ....this is NOT what the issue is all about.

    If either the US publicly said "we will not ask for Assange to be extradited to the USA" or Sweden publicly said "We will not extradite Assange to the USA", none of us would be having this discussion here.

    You mean well, I'm sure, and you may well be right as far as the Swedish case is concerned. We don't know.

    But all of us who support Assange do it because we believe that someone, especially a non-US citizen, should not be extradited to the US on such a repugnant basis.

    Please campaign with the US or Swedish authorities to make that pledge, and I'll support you 100% to make sure Assange & his accusers get a fair day in court.

    But not until then.

    OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

    by Lupin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:28:06 AM PDT

    •  There is no reason for them to do so (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rei, Unduna, Gator Keyfitz

      Sweden seeks him for questioning in an ongoing investigation.

      And so far, Assange has gotten the full extent of due process in the UK including release while the process proceeded that many others would not have enjoyed.

      Perhaps you should present the case that Sweden has any other intentions then what has been stated and pursued, because the international ranking of the Swedish judiciary is very highly ranked for transparency, process and fairness, so there is actually not a sound basis to raise the accusation they are acting otherwise.

      If the US wishes to pursue Assange on other charges, and they have sufficient evidence to charge him, that is the prerogative of the US and there would be no case where such assurances would or should be made for Assange.

      Unless you do not believe in the rule of law of feel he is somehow above it.

      Again, Sweden seeks him for questioning in an ongoing investigation and he has not been charged with a crime, so even if he is a prime suspect, they are following due process.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:50:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are many people... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sk4p, chuckvw, dfarrah, for 6 too

        ...who believe that the US, UK, Swedish and Australian governments are engaging in a coordinated effort to extradite Julian Assange to the United States, to face espionage charges for journalistic activities. Your comment about the "rule of law" is a farce and reminds me of the people who attacked Clinton in the 90s.

        OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

        by Lupin on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:47:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are so may people who believe (0+ / 0-)

          God created the world in 7 days that "evolution" is a farce, right?

          And, and, and...

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 01:47:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In my experience... (0+ / 0-)

            ...people who start shouting "rule of law" are usually hypocrites.

            OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

            by Lupin on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 01:48:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have my own reasons (0+ / 0-)

              You see, I live in a country where the rule of law is not so strong and due process short and summary, and understanding the impact of that on society perhaps I actually appreciate the value of law and the legal process, including not putting people above the law just because they are Mr So-and-So, which happens a lot here.

              So that is why I have repeatedly stressed these issues in my comments here, including my comments supporting Mr. Assange's right to pursue his legal remedies up to and including seeking asylum if he so choses.

              And have suggest this be decided in court if it gets to that, not in the court of Daily Kos, which is as full of opinion, assumption and speculation as any blog.

              In fact, Assange has gotten due process in full view of the public and expert legal representation all the way up to the UK Supreme Court, which on legal basis decided against him, a decision some people have difficulty accepting.

              Greetings from China.

              What about my Daughter's future?

              by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 06:21:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Um, thanks for the rhetorical pat on the head. (4+ / 0-)

      I think she would probably care about the allegations regardless. She really doesn't have to follow your rules to get you to behave with compassion and empathy. If you lack compassion and empathy for the victims, it's not anyone's fault but your own.

  •  Assange has been given fair due process (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rei, Gator Keyfitz, Ellid, auron renouille

    More so, probably, than the typical British citizen, due, no doubt, to the notoriety of his self and the controversy surrounding this case.

    We should be clear about several things:

    - He has not been charged with a crime, he is sought for questioning in an on-going investigation.
    - Therefore, he is not a fugitive from justice but the subject of an extradition request, and as of yesterday, in contempt of the British court ruling on the extradition request.
    - Whatever one would like to project on the proceedings as to the nature or motivation to seek him and what might, ultimately result if he were returned to Sweden, we should not assume his guild or innocence, and if we believe in due process and the rule of law, put our trust in that and not put him above the law.
    - If Assange believes he is the subject of political persecution and would like to seek asylum, then it is his human right to do so and a matter between him and the country he applies to.
    - Should he be granted political asylum, that is a matter of international law and it would be up to the country granting it to determine if he should continue to reside in the host embassy (which is legally granted sovereignty by the host country, the UK) or they could negotiate his free passage through UK territory to leave.
    - It is not very long ago that the US handled an equally if not more tricky case when Chen Guangchen was granted temporary asylum in the US Embassy in Beijing, eventually resulting in an agreement for the US to grant him a Student Visa and China an Exit Visa to live in the US. This suggests some of the speculation about the intentions of Sweden and the US is, at the very least, premature.
    - If Assange was eventually charged and convicted of a crime by due process, then he would and should be subject to whatever judgement is rendered, and I would highlight that the Swedish judicial system is one of the highest ranked in the world for transparency, process and fairness.

    I do suggest objective consideration of the above by all.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:39:08 AM PDT

  •  Bullshit (9+ / 0-)

    the presumption of innocence is real, and should be respected. I have spent 20 years practicing criminal law, and guess what? I have personally seen not a few, but many, instances of false allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Where the "victim" admitted the lie. Many other men have been released from prison years later after the lie was uncovered, and some rot in prison today because the lie wasn't uncovered, so don't give me this bullshit about standing with "victims" - let due process work, then I'll tell you who the victim was. Of course, nobody I ever represented was wanted by the most powerful nation on earth and half the intelligence agencies on the planet, but apparently you are prepared to accept everything said at face value. I would not be so trusting myself.

  •  Swedes can fly to the UK, anytime (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    codairem, sk4p, for 6 too

    Assange has welcomed the Swedish prosecutor to come to Britain where he will allow them to interview him at any time. The fact that the Swedes have failed to take this opportunity, and instead allowed this potential criminal case to drag on and on, indicates that resolving the criminal matter is the last thing on their mind.

    Also the fact that the Swedes haven't brought charges yet, despite the fact that the only participant or witness in the case remaining to be interviewed is the potential defendant, who is hardly likely to provide them with information which will make it more likely that they will bring charges, again indicates that the entire criminal investigation is a mere pretext. If they don't have enough information without Assange's input to bring charges, they are hardly likely ever to bring charges.

    Eli Stephens
    Left I on the News
    "Stand Up, Fight Back!"

    by elishastephens on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 08:50:34 AM PDT

  •  Since you seem to know about Swedish... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest, for 6 too

    Law protocols.

    Why haven't Swedish authorities taken Assange up on his offer to answer their questions in person in Britain, or via Skype?  Why are they insisting that he come to Sweden to answer these questions?

    It would seem to me that if the true goal of the Swedish authorities is to get Assange to answer these questions, then they would accept his offer.

    •  Wow. Just, wow. (14+ / 0-)

      How many times do I have to respond to this exact question, given that the answer is right in the diary, very clear, and with a referenced link?

      Hint: look at the comment above yours.

    •  Asked and answered, repeatedly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rei, auron renouille, doroma
      •  I don't think it's been answered. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, dfarrah, for 6 too

        I can't see what the harm would be to the Swedish prosecution if they were to interview him on British soil.  What, exactly, would they lose by doing that?

        Some have suggested cost, but seriously, the cost of a year-long court fight to extradite him is orders of magnitude higher.  And if, after the interview, they still wanted him to come to Sweden to be charged they could extradite him after all.

        I've made a sincere effort to think up any thing at all that the Swedes would have lost by coming to Britain to talk with him and I can't do it.

        “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:58:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's literally been answered approximately (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ellid

          20 times in the comments thread as well as the diary itself, and I'm just baffled as to how many people are totally missing this.  Swedish law prohibits the filing of charges against someone who's not on Swedish soil and within a fixed period of time from being questioned.  Hence, he has to come back to Sweden and be questioned again before they file charges.  It's really that simple.

          •  "Filing charges" does not equal "interviewing" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuckvw, dfarrah, for 6 too

            so saying they can't file charges outside of Sweden is no answer to the question why couldn't they interview him outside of Sweden.

            Also, while I have seen your link about him needing to be in Sweden in order to actually be charged, I do not see anything supporting your claim that there is a limited "fixed period of time" between interview and charge.

            “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:03:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  IF Rei is correct and there's only a limited time (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rei

              and IF after questioning Assange the Swedish authorities decide to charge him, they'll again have to request extradition, which he could then fight, and then appeal, and request another hearing, until he could potentially have grounds for having the charges dismissed entirely on the grounds that the Swedish authorities failed to charge him in a timely fashion, even if his actions were the reason for the failure.  

              It's rather like Ira Einhorn, the former guru who killed his girlfriend, stuffed her corpse in a trunk, and then claimed that the CIA had framed him.  He nearly got away with killing an innocent woman by fleeing to Europe and then dragging out the extradition process long enough that witnesses had died and the prosecution was much more difficult because so much time had passed.  Assange is doing the same sort of thing by fighting this - and at this point, if he really thinks that any government could possibly get away with whisking him away to Yemen without an international outcry, he has issues that dwarf the Swedish chargse.

              •  He's not afraid of Yemen, he is afraid of the US (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chuckvw, for 6 too

                There has been a huge outcry about how Manning has been treated.  Hell, a year in solitary confinement is mighty close to torture, if not torture.  The US has made it clear that it believes it can hold people indefinitely, with no charges being made, without the benefit of a lawyer, US citizen or not.  

                Assange has every right to fear extradition to the US.  There is and has been an international outcry about the prisoners in Guantanamo...you see how well that has worked.

                This is not about getting a so-called free pass on rape, this is about not getting tortured in a US military facility.

                •  Is there any hard evidence that the US will? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rei

                  I've seen a lot of speculation, but I'm talking a quote from an American official saying that the DOJ plans to request extradition from Sweden or the UK.  Is there anything to this, or is it speculation?

                  Also...

                  Whether or not the rumor has anything to it - Assange could still be guilty of assaulting/molesting these women.  Just because he's behind Wikileaks doesn't make him a nice guy, or make the women who are accusing him sluts, whores, or CIA plants.

          •  They're missing it because they want to. nt. (0+ / 0-)

            "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

            by auron renouille on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:05:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your psychic powers are failing you. n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              for 6 too

              “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:13:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Below where? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dfarrah, for 6 too

            Maybe I've missed it, but every "answer" I've seen is not an answer to that question.  Questioning and charging are two different things.  And I have seen no explanation of what the Swedish prosecutors would lose by questioning him in a venue where they can't charge him.

            “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:17:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  In other words you don't have an answer. n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dfarrah

                “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:52:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You've been answered repeatedly. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rockhound

                  They want to question with option to charge and that must happen on Swedish soil and within a pre-determined time frame ON SWEDISH FUCKING SOIL.

                  You are choosing to be obtuse and it is duly noted.

                  "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

                  by Unduna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:54:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Where does the claim of "time frame" (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dfarrah, joshd, for 6 too

                    come from?

                    I have seen the backup for the claim that charges must be filed in person in Swden (although we have at least one counter-example to that claim HERE) but I have yet to see anyone provide backup for the claim that there is some time limit between questioning and charging.

                    It is not I who am "choosing to be obtuse."

                    “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:55:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  No, in other words I see no reason to continue (0+ / 0-)

                  in the face of such absolute conviction.

        •  It hasn't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          for 6 too

          Rei and others are citing one particular document about Swedish law that may be wrongly paraphrasing on that point.

          See the comments of Eli Stephens.

          As well as,

          "In August, a Swedish court charged Nowajah in absentia with arbitrary conduct with children."

          http://www.apnewsarchive.com/...

          That can't happen under Rei's version of Swedish law. It's possible too that AP is misinterpreting something there. So, no it hasn't been answered.

  •  It seems like folks are talking past each other... (4+ / 0-)

    ... as another commenter said. But this is a conversation worth having. Part of what appears to drive opinions in this case is the basic framework of how people look at Julian Assange and the extent to which the complaints made against him in Sweden may be connected to his legal problems with the U.S. government.

    Without dismissing the possibility that Assange and wikileaks have been unfairly targeted for prosecution by our own officials, however, why should that give Assange any immunity to submit to Swedish law where accusations of sexual violence have been made? In other words, no matter what we may think of Assange as a whistleblower, isn't he still subject to the Swedish authorities investigating a crime?

    Many reactions here come across as being based on speculation about hypotheticals, such as what might happen if/when Assange is extradicted or what the motivation of the women involved might be. But isn't the whole idea of an in-person interview to determine the facts in this matter and get his side of the story?

    Assange is certainly entitled to the presumption of being considered innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, reasonable people can look at how hard he is fighting to avoid answering his accusers and wonder what he has to hide. Were any of us satisfied that justice had been done in the Trayvon Martin case when the Florida prosecution initially declined to even file criminal charges against George Zimmerman? Shouldn't the goal of any legal system be to determine whether a trial is needed to uncover the truth and to assign consequences and responsibility based on that truth?

    If we strip away all of the politics here, what makes Julian Assange so damn special anyway? And if our "side" supports his appeal for political asylum in Ecuador just because he once did something we consider good, how does that make us any better or different than those who believe Zimmerman should not be held accountable for the death of Martin simply because he is one of theirs?

    Those are not intended as rhetorical or trolling questions. I really am curious about where we need to draw the line.

    •  Assange's lawyers have indicated they would accept (4+ / 0-)

      the obvious solution (and press reports today have also suggested Assange himself would): Ecuador agrees to Assange's delivery to Sweden after Sweden gives assurances that Assange will not be extradited to a country where he would be subject to the death penalty and/or torture (i.e., the U.S.).

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:22:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But to get (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rei

        extradition from Sweden or the Uk, the US government would have to sign agreements  not to use the death penalty or torture, so why go to ecuador?

        Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

        by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:20:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sweden has already surrendered people to the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chuckvw, for 6 too

          U.S. for rendition, and those people were tortured.  

          So they can do it.

          An assurance to another sovereign country would make it a lot harder to do it.

          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

          by lysias on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:47:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  rendition was possible (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rei

            because there was no publicity. Do you seriously think that there would be no publicity around Asange?

            Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

            by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:01:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not only that... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              auron renouille, ceebs

              but the UK has rendered people, too.  In much more questionable situations than Sweden's.

              The only difference between the two countries, from a risk perspective for assange, is that Assange is not being tried for rape in the UK.

              •  to me it does (0+ / 0-)

                look like a desperate act of a man who's seen that all of his legal options are over, so a few days somewhere before going to jail in sweeden is a desperate last throw of the dice.

                Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings? Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship

                by ceebs on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:30:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  As the originating country of the extradition, (0+ / 0-)

        the UK already has to clear any extradition from Sweden to the US, according to the Swedish prime minister (and everything else I've seen).  So the UK has the final say either way, whether he's tried for rape in Sweden or not.

        •  For the UK to give clearance for an extradition (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          for 6 too

          by Sweden would be much easier politically for the UK government than for the UK government itself to go ahead and extradite Assange to the U.S.

          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

          by lysias on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:11:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Disgraceful editorial threatening Ecuador (9+ / 0-)

    if it does not submit to Yankee demands in today's Washington Post: Asylum for Julian Assange?:

    There is one potential check on Mr. Correa’s ambitions. The U.S. “empire” he professes to despise happens to grant Ecuador (which uses the dollar as its currency) special trade preferences that allow it to export many goods duty-free. A full third of Ecuadoran foreign sales ($10 billion in 2011) go to the United States, supporting some 400,000 jobs in a country of 14 million people. Those preferences come up for renewal by Congress early next year. If Mr. Correa seeks to appoint himself America’s chief Latin American enemy and Julian Assange’s protector between now and then, it’s not hard to imagine the outcome.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:25:26 AM PDT

    •  That article was pretty sickening (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lysias, Kinak, ukit, chuckvw, for 6 too

      coming from an editorial board.  It sounds like its hot off the presses of Rush Limbaugh's type writer.  The "global anti-American left" - where do they get this stuff?  

    •  WTF? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      for 6 too

      Had no idea the WA Post was so right wing..

      •  Washington Post Corp. depends for its profits (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        on the Kaplan educational subsidiary, which has come in for scandals lately, and so depends for its profits on the continued good will of the Department of Education.

        I suspect the administration instructed the Washington Post to write an editorial along those lines.  The Washington Post editorials have long been blatantly neoconservative and war-mongering, but I have never seen them stoop so low as today's editorial about Assange.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:47:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, the Washington Boast has been crap ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lysias

      ... for a very long time, and its editorial board is well known as one of the most right wing in the country. If memory serves, the Boast even ran an editorial defending the "right" of local school administrators to strip-search a teen-age girl on the mere suspicion that she might have contraband on her. See the Savannah Redding case.

      That opinion was so misguided, even the conservative Supreme Court voted 8-1 in favor of Ms. Redding's rights and against her school administrators. Tellingly, only Clarence Thomas agreed with the Boast's opinion that the strip-search was justified.

      The editorial board talked a lot about the importance of a student's expectation of privacy and constitutional protections against unwarranted search and seizure. But in the end they defended authority on the grounds that we "mustn't tie the hands of school administrators" and weaseled out once again. Truly disgusting. Apparently, the principal was concerned enough to violate Ms. Redding's privacy but not so worried about her that he bothered to call the police about the accusations against her.

      Sorry about the rant. Did not mean to threadjack. Just still outraged about the errant nonsense that fascist rag of a newspaper puts out.

  •  This is a difficult thread to comment (13+ / 0-)

    on, as angelajean has already remarked above.  I've started several comments then deleted them for reasons of deliberation.

    I can't remember another thread for which I've had so many deletions, in fact.

    Doesn't make it any less important a thread to participate in, however, and certainly an important one to read.

    There's certainly no lack of one dimensional thinking among progressives, either, and comment threads do illustrate that.

    Thank you Rei for posting this diary and for giving me far, far more to think about than I'm sure I can handle in one sitting.  

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 09:44:23 AM PDT

    •  Like you, I've started several replies but (0+ / 0-)

      ended up deleting rather than posting. One thing I have to say after everything is that "No means no". I was taught this by my parents and it stood me in good stead through many years in the entertainment business which is usually quite permissive. As far as Senator John Edwards goes, I am still not sure that he wasn't caught up in a "honey trap" because none of our corporate Democrats or corporate leaders had any doubt about what he was going to do if he won and he was telling the truth to power; none of which excuses any of what he did.

      •  Oh, I think Edwards knew what he was doing (0+ / 0-)

        And I seriously doubt that Rielle Hunter was a plant.   Her past behavior is so notorious that anyone who seriously thought that she had either the brains or the nerve to do something like this is out of his/her mind.  Way, way too dumb and self-centered to be trusted - and if you want details, Google "Alison Poole."  

    •  I have something of a Meh feeling about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ellid

      WikiLeaks and Assange's work.

      Do we need investigative journalism? yes

      Do we need WikiLeaks? Meh

  •  reiser is a monster (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    for 6 too

    putting Assange in the same company?  That is unfair and extraordinarily harsh.  I question the amount of effort being put in to extradite him in light of how much effort is made for others with similar charges.  This really smells political for his work with Wikileaks.

  •  What happened to the allegations of (0+ / 0-)

    One/both of the accused having shady ties to the CIA?  Was that debunked thoroughly or is it still hanging around the case like a smelly fish?  

  •  If the rape charges weren't so obviously (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    for 6 too

    just one of many ways those threatened by Wikileaks are using to discredit or neutralize Assange (the bank blockade is among these, for example), then they'd have more credibility.  But rape is just so emotional an issue that being accused of rape = being a rapist for many, and this includes the diarist.

    Who's to say that there are victims to stand with?  Does the diarist have knowledge others don't?  There are accusers, clearly.  But victims?

    This diary needs to fall off the rec list quickly.

    The world does not need billionaires.

    by targetdemographic on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:45:58 AM PDT

    •  I don't see the obviousness (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unduna, white blitz, Rei, sarahnity, TFinSF

      There were some excellent posts about a years ago over on Feministing, Feministe, and Pandagon about how these accusations actually fit perfectly with Julian Assange's previous interactions with women, long before he ever got involved with Wikileaks.  Given that, no, it's not obvious in the slightest that this an organized campaign.

      •  An organized campaign (0+ / 0-)

        is not the same thing as one of many ways that those threatened by Assange are using to discredit or neutralize him.  The latter is just the facts:  those threatened by Assange are trying to take him out.  Period.  I submit that the rape charges are among these methods.

        The world does not need billionaires.

        by targetdemographic on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:32:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks, nice diary. I tried to discuss these (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pimutant, Ellid, Rei, auron renouille, Unduna

    issues in the original diary but didn't do a good job and it didn't go over well as you know. I'm coming back to another issue that you brought up: it's illigocal to think that in UK he's safe from extradition to US on possible future national security charges but in Sweden he will be extradited. There is no evidence of this and in fact the opposite is more likely.

  •  Wow. (13+ / 0-)

    Looking at many of the comments, I think this diary was spot on.

    Rape is bad, unless of course, the accused is popular.  In that case we simply must question the motives of the victim and assume that there's a vast conspiracy.

    Sad.  Very sad.

    My dogs think I'm smart and pretty.

    by martydd on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:52:00 AM PDT

  •  Rei, you have the correct viewpoint on this. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bubbanomics, Rei, auron renouille

    Thank you for posting this diary.

  •  I would retitle this (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sk4p, lysias, joshd, dfarrah, for 6 too

    Standing With Whom I Know To Be Victims, Without Evidence or Charges, Particularly When It's A Ruse To Get Assange Extradited To America, Where He Will Never See The Light of Day Again.

    “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” - Harriet Tubman

    by Publius2008 on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:08:21 AM PDT

  •  Aussie diplomatic cables confirm DOJ is pursuing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth, BradyB, chuckvw, for 6 too

    charges against Assange, as reported by Sydney Morning Herald: Assange felt 'abandoned' by Australian government after letter from Roxon:

    Last December, Fairfax Media obtained the release under freedom of information of Australian Embassy cables that in December 2010 reported from Washington to Canberra that WikiLeaks was the target of an "unprecedented" US criminal probe and that media reports that a secret grand jury had been convened in Alexandria, Virginia, were ''likely true''.

    The released cables show that the Australian embassy in Washington confirmed from US officials that the US Justice Department was conducting an ''active and vigorous inquiry into whether Julian Assange can be charged under US law, most likely the 1917 Espionage Act''.

    Australian diplomats asked for advance warning if any US extradition moves ''so that ministers could respond appropriately'' to media and public inquiries.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:10:18 AM PDT

  •  The Pendulum Swings ... (5+ / 0-)

    For generations few women could get justice for sexual assault by a stranger ... even fewer if the rapist were an acquaintance -- and a sexually active woman could not get justice for sexual violence at all.

    Now it appears that sight-unseen, the mere allegation an ocean away ought  (at least in-cyber) to be regarded as a charge as good as proven.  It's part of our general trend these days to admit the severity of the charge as at least partial proof  defendants' guilt.  The nastier the offense, the more likely the person accused is to have committed it "it just stands to reason."

    EXCEPT: in this case ... it's not just a matter of a serious charge that ought to go before a jury and be decided on the subtle blend of evidence and jury bias that such cases are decided on.

    There's this strong possibility that if  Assange were returned to Sweden ... he probably wouldn't stay there long enough to face a jury on the sexual charge -- there's a good chance he'd be handed over to US Homeland Security, where he'd get about the same treatment as Jose Padilla got.

    After a couple of years of that, he'd probably  plead guilty to espionage, conspiracy to murder Jesus -- and no doubt  the rape charge as well.

    Justice "seen to be done" is every bit as "justice actually done" ...

    •  Do you have any hard evidence of this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rei

      I'm seriously asking, because all I've seen is speculation.  I would greatly appreciate it.  :)

      •  Follow the link (0+ / 0-)

        LINK

        Of course we wouldn't know "for sure" until it was far too late for Assange.

        So far, Assange has "served" over a year of an admittedly comfortable and self imposed house arrest -- he has not been "free."  Considering the hesaid/sheaid nature of the evidence against him and the relatively lenient Swedish Rape Law if the alleged sex crime were all Assange was worried ... even discounting the possibility of  probation or even acquittal at trial  ... is the threat of two years in a Swedish prison a worse deal than the certainty of a lifetime exile in Ecquador ?

        It's probably worth noting that compared to ours, Swedish prisons are particularly nice WMCA Men's Residences -- though much more closely supervised.

        Now "anything is possible:"   Assange could really be one of those histrionic, narcissistic characters who has to have things 100% his own way, however uncomfortable or disadvantageous to himself.  He may very well feel "better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" thing.  And picking this particular Wikkileaks fight with the US Government -- suggests that Julian has more than one clinker in his thinker ...

        Maybe he just likes playing at The Prisoner of Zenda -- where if he just took his chances at trial and served his time, he'd be more or less out of sight and out of mind.

        But given how the US has conducted of the War on Terror to date -- I don't think it's unreasonable for him  to fear "winding up like Jose Padilla."

    •  I may be mistaken (0+ / 0-)

      But I believe under the law if he is extradited in one case that cannot be used to surrender him on another, i.e., if innocent he would be free to leave and the US would have to pursue him elsewhere, and if guilty, he would be free after serving sentence.

      You may also note the US could at this point file a separate extradition request to the UK (or Ecuador as the case may be) but have not done so.

      The speculation that he would be "handed-over" is just that and would be an extra-judicial process if it happened.

      In fact, Assange has not been charged but is wanted for questioning (which obviously could result in charges if the Prosecutor elected to).

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 06:37:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes .... you're right (0+ / 0-)

        It "special rendition" is BY DEFINITION "extra-judicial."

        Based on the l conduct of the Global War on Terror  so far ... who would this "extra judicial" matter to?  

        Fox News viewers aren't the only Americans who have come to feel that Terror and Sex Crimes ought to be dealtt with in a wholly separate system of law and justice in which rules of evidence and consistent sentencing guidelines  have little, if any, place.

        •  But it hasn't happened and is highly unlikely (0+ / 0-)

          The world is watching this, and I suspect, that knowing that, Assange is using this as a way to escape responsibility and accountability for his personnel actions. As long as his mug is in the news he is safe and has plenty of rich patrons to support him (nice work if you can get it).

          I admire some of the good work he and wikileaks has done, but frankly, Assange is an imperious, egotistical jerk who has alienated a lot of people with his irresponsible personal behavior including some of the key members and supporters of wikileaks that have parted company with him over this.

          If the US wants to prosecute Assange they can make a extradition request at any time and put him on trial, they don't need to kidnap him.

          On the other hand, Assange is such a visible and watched public figure that any attempt to use extra-legal methods would be ridiculously foolish and not something the US really needs to do.

          So while Assnge promotes the idea that he is in danger of extra-judicial kidnaping, I think the actual case is that if the US decided to prosecute him they could use legal extradition at any time, so his best bet to be sheltered from that is to gain right of abode in a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the US and a history of non-coperation, such as Ecuador.

          You must recognize Assange has a personal and financial interest in promoting this idea that is essentially a highly speculative conspiracy theory. It amazes me that so many Liberals buy into this mythology wholesale, mirroring the behavior of Rightist CT fans, but I guess that is human nature. People believe what they want to believe, and the more sensational the idea, the credible in their minds.

          Actually, the worst thing likely to happen to Assange is that the world will tire of this and ignore him.

          That is essentially what governments around the world have done with the wikileaks disclosures, done their best to ignore them and pretend the information does not exist or is not importiant, and that seems to be working pretty good for them.

          The attention span of the general populace is short.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 03:00:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Look no further than the comments (12+ / 0-)

    to prove the diarists point.

    Now I'm going to leave before my fucking head explodes.

    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"- MLK

    by SwedishJewfish on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 11:30:38 AM PDT

  •  Motto of the diary: Guilty until proven innocent (13+ / 0-)

    ...when the name of the alleged perpetrator is Julian Assange.

    "Normally when there are charges of rape, people on DailyKos side strongly with the victims - but not this time.  The talk here generally ignores the victims."

    First, there are no "charges of rape". There are unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct. The particular accusations would also not be classified as "rape" pretty much anywhere except in Sweden's peculiar system (and possibly in the UK when the accused person's name is Assange, but in no other known case.)

    Second, we do not know if there are "victims" here or not. In fact the only victim might be Assange for all we know, the victim of a false accusation and a subsequent political witch hunt (more on that later). The diarist appears to mean that Assange's accusers should be seen as "victims" by us, based on the fact that an accusation has been made, and which Assange has adamantly denied and which has not been open to evidential scrutiny or any kind of due process. In other words, the main premise of the diary is a call for the adoption of "Guilty until proven innocent", at least when the accused is Julian Assange.

    Third, the attempt in the diary to "refute" the extremely valid fears for the personal safety and human rights of Assange are disgraceful and factually dubious. One of the most egregious of these is this: "They should just accept his offer to chat via Skype.": Suspects cannot dictate the terms of their questioning, a "skype interview" isn't at all like an actual police questioning, and as above, he can't be charged remotely."

    Sweden claims they want Assange for "questioning". Assange has repeatedly offered not only to "chat via Skype" but to answer any and all questions in person or any other way they see fit in the UK, just not with his person in their custody as their prisoner, as he fears for his personal safety and human rights. However, Sweden has been determined to have one thing and one thing only: Assange's person in theircustody, on Swedish soil, a condition not required for "questioning" (including "actual police questioning"). It is however, a condition required for Assange to be held incommunicado with the outside world under Sweden's draconian pretrial detention policies, and to potentially never to see the light of day again. Even if Sweden questions Assange and drops the charges the US government could then immediately drop their sealed "espionage" indictment on Swedish authorities while he's still in their custody and he could be off in a cell in Guantanamo within hours, all while having no contact with the outside world to call for help.

    Getting back to the issue of political witch hunt, The Swedish prosecution's behavior on this has been, well, unorthodox in many ways. One is noted above, insistence that to accomplish "questioning" he must first be their prisoner on Swedish soil. But second, the original prosecutor judged the accusations as insufficient to bring any charges and dropped them. A different prosecutor was then politically appointed to the case and re-opened it with all guns blazing. An international arrest warrant was then issued and, prior to his detention in the UK and shortly after Wikileaks release of the US State Dept cables, Assange somehow got elevated to Interpol's Most Wanted list. It is wildy unusual for anyone to be on that list based on the kind of allegations here, whether you choose to call it "rape" or not. There are probably many thousands of ex-boyfriends or husbands running around the world whose partners have accused them of some kind of sexual misconduct, including rape or worse, yet they don't get on such a list. Only when their name is Assange and they happen to have really pissed off the world's superpower and other powerful governments by exposing their lies and war crimes does that happen. Yeah right, no political element at all here. Wake up!

    Whether any of these Sweden accusations have merit or not, there are clearly politics playing a role here and at the very least a very genuine risk that Assange is being railroaded and could wind up in the US "justice" system, at which point, as a foreign national accused of being a spy and national security threat, will essentially have no rights to due process, or really any rights at all.

    A dreadful diary. Play loose and fast with your own life and liberty if you want, but don't do it with someone else's, or expect us to join you.

    •  No, the underlying theme (7+ / 0-)

      "We need to stop smearing the alleged victims just because it's Julian Assange."

      •  Did we read the same diary? (8+ / 0-)

        In which the charges against Assange are recited, and are uncritically taken to be true?

        The theme of the diary is "Assange is guilty because he's been accused of rape."  Note that the diarist's prejudice is evident in the diary's title:  "On Standing with the Victims ...".

        Are there rape victims in the first place?  There are, only if you've made up your mind already.  The diarist has, and so have many others, on the basis of what the charges are about - rape - and pure emotion.

        The world does not need billionaires.

        by targetdemographic on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:09:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I stand by what I wrote (5+ / 0-)

          Whether or not Assange is actually guilty, or the conspiracy theory that he'll be whisked away to Yemen for torture is credible, there is zero excuse for the smears that have been directed at his accusers.  

        •  Did we? (0+ / 0-)

          In case you missed it, the diarist has categorically stated in comments that her point is not to convict him in the court of public opinion, but that he should not be exempt from a legal process in a court of law if there is a case to be had.

          BTW, it is not up to the alleged victims to press criminal charges but to the prosecutor - "State vs Defendant" is the way it works. It's actually not so unusual for the victims of crimes to be less than cooperative for their own reasons (particularly in rape cases where there is further pain, suffering shame and embarrassment involved), but that should not necessarily impede prosecutions.

          Assange has not been charged.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 06:46:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You forgot the sub-theme... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lysias, chuckvw, for 6 too, joshd

        which seems to be:

        "We can't acknowledge that Assange's fear of extradition to the US is legitimate, and that Sweden has a history of helping the CIA render people to be tortured."

        •  As does the UK, but he has apparently no problem (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, Ellid

          being there.  The only difference being that he's not being tried for rape in the UK.

          The concept that probably the highest profile criminally-charged individual in the world right now will be secretly rendered by a first-world nation to be tortured, and because of this, he should get a get-out-of-jail-card for all alleged crimes, no matter how serious, is both absurd and beyond the pale.

          •  Again you play loose and fast with the facts (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuckvw, WisePiper, dfarrah, for 6 too

            ...at least when someone else's life and liberty are on the line (especially when it is someone you have repeatedly declared guilty-by-accusation). There are a number of differences you choose to ignore that have been raised between the situation for Assange in the UK and Sweden, including the political situation in the two countries, the different detention rules, even the ongoing Sweden case would be problematic for any US extradition request to the UK for Assange right now, etc. Assange's lawyers and others have gone over these issues. Even if Assange were transported to Sweden and all charges dropped he could wind up serving an effective prison sentence for the rest of his life, in Sweden while going through extradition appeals and possibly in the US afterward, with no daylight in between or thereafter.

            Moreover, you are again "translating" things into straw men. Everyone here is talking about a particular circumstance involving the specific questions at issue here, not any hypothetical alleged crimes in any hypothetical circumstances. And nobody is necessarily saying he will be "secretly" rendered or "to be tortured", as if that would be announced in advance, or acknowledged as "torture" even if it occurred. The US government has routinely declared that it did not torture all the people it tortured, because "we don't torture." More fundamental is that Assange will be facing trumped up charges of "espionage" or "terrorism" for engaging in journalism. That is, he faces attacks on his basic human rights merely by the prospect of winding up a foreign detainee in the US on national security charges, which could find him in a cell forever without any due process or executed. But you apparently think that "first world nations" don't do stuff like this, or are guessing that it's not likely with this particular guy because he's famous. Again, i say wake up and join the "post-911" world with the rest of us, and stop playing so casual with someone else's life.

            The most powerful government in the world badly wants this guy dead or in a jail cell for the rest of his life for things which are not crimes. If it were your life or that of your parent or child, would you so casually dismiss the (what should be obvious) risks? I think not.

            •  Completely not true, but that's what you'd expect (0+ / 0-)

              from someone who likes to take all his information from the defense attorney of someone because they like them.

              including the political situation in the two countries
              Despite what Assange's defense lawyers would have you believe, Sweden has one of the least corrupt and most transparent systems on Earth.
              even the ongoing Sweden case would be problematic for any US extradition request to the UK for Assange right now
              Great - guess he should keep raping people then to drag it out!

              (You realize that's the implication of your argument, don't you?)

              Even if Assange were transported to Sweden and all charges dropped he could wind up serving an effective prison sentence for the rest of his life, in Sweden while going through extradition appeals
              Not true.  Swedish law, as FairTrials points out, prohibits an individual from being held longer than their likely sentence, and the detention has to be re-approved every 14 days - something that Assange's attorneys are likely to appeal to an extreme degree every single time, him having way more resources than the average defendant.
              and possibly in the US afterward, with no daylight in between or thereafter.
              And he could also be extradited to the US from the UK, so total red herring.

              He needs to stand trial, period.  You don't get out of rape charges by saying, "but somebody else is after me!", whether it's true or not.

              •  You miss all the points, as usual (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                expatjourno

                Sweden does not have a particularly just or transparent system for pre-trial detention, which is what Assange may wind up facing indefinitely even if no charges are ever brought in the "rape" allegations, for example while appealing an extradition to face crimes of journalism in the US.
                http://www.unhcr.org/...

                "Great - guess he should keep raping people then to drag it out!
                (You realize that's the implication of your argument, don't you?)"

                Yet again we have the ever-present Guilt By Accusation premise underlying all your rhetoric. "Keep raping" = he's already raped, and my comment implies he should keep doing so. Your persistent use of this tactic really makes you look like a despicable person (as does your cavalier treatment generally of facts and risks with someone else's life) and you should stop.

    •  Pretty much none of what you wrote is true, (0+ / 0-)

      which has been referenced extensively both in the diary and the comments.  He has to be in Sweden to be charged according to Swedish law, which is why the Swedish want him there and why a "Skype chat" is a total non-starter (of course that'd be a non-starter with pretty much every police force on Earth).  The accusations against him were deemed credible by not just the Swedish judicial system, but the British system now two; that's two out of two first-world judicial systems.  Even after being extradited to Sweden, the UK still is legally responsible for clearing any US extradition requests.  No prosecutor was "politically appointed", and the concept of different members of the criminal justice system having different views on a case is not only not unusual, it's pretty much the global standard, as is the perception of guilt changing as more information becomes available and an investigation progresses.

      •  Ho hum (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cylonbabe, dfarrah, for 6 too

        Wrote a lengthy reply detailing each falsehood and evasion in your above post, and it was deleted by some censor. I'll give a shorter version. Presmably i said some words someone didn't like. Didn't know DK censored comments and without any explanation or opportunity to revise.

        In short, everything I said above is true. He does not need to be in Sweden to be questioned, which is what they say they want. Your repeated claims that an accused has to be on Swedish soil to be "charged" (you're moving goal posts, that's a separate thing from questioning) with something there also appears to be refuted above by elishastephens. Moreover, as I said, any legitimate legal investigation in such a case would want to question the accused and hear his side of the story before deciding whether or not to file charges. OTOH, a railroad job whose outcome had been predetermined by political considerations would probably not feel something like this necessary.

        It was not just "skype chat" but any format they wanted, including face-to-face meetings in the UK. All of which would accomplish the alleged goal of "questioning".

        The initial lead prosecutor on the case judged the accusations to have no merit and dropped the case. That prosecutor was then removed and another assigned who suddenly found them credible. The Swedish determination of credibility for the accusations is far muddier than you'd like to pretend. No this is not usual stuff, and neither is an accused person in such a case being placed on Interpol's Most Wanted list.

        And the UK did not judge the accusations credible as that was not their remit. They were even criticized by some for not considering the merit of the accusations. So it's not 2-for-2 as you claim but more like 0.5-for-2.

        You also evade many of the main points. The premise of your diary is Guilty By Accusation. That's true and you evade this.

        Everything I said above is completely true, and everything you're saying about this case is either totally false or highly equivocal.

        •  Your previous comment was not deleted (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kirbybruno, Ellid

          it was hidden by community members. Your accusation of "fraud" was the reason. (I was not one of those who hide-rated, but I don't disagree with the action.)

          “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 Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:09:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting irony here relative to the diary (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dfarrah, zephron, for 6 too

            I made an 'accusation of "fraud"'. You'd think the fans of this diary should therefore consider me A Fraud Victim, and the diarist Guilty By Accusation. It only follows. Instead they want to silence the victim. Go figure.

            •  Great. You now see yourself as equivalent (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound

              to a rape victim.  Because you were HR'ed on a website for writing something offensive.

              Lovely, the people on this site.

              •  More creative "translation" from Rei (0+ / 0-)

                I see myself as someone who's made an "accusation" and therefore should be seen by others and treated as a "victim" of said accusation, according to the very premises of your deceitful word games.

                I'd add that your word games are similar to the Cheney/Scalia/Rove game to promote the indefinite detention/no-due-process agenda. On one hand the government grabs someone and throws them into a whole in Guantanamo. Then a civil liberties advocate says this can not happen, the person has rights to due process. Then they say the civil liberties advocate wants "rights for terrorists". The accused is magically transformed into the guilty. Likewise someone making a rape accusation is magically transformed into a "rape victim". Same word games.

                If these are the rules then I'm a victim (and you're now smearing the victim).

        •  Your comment was not deleted, it was hidden (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kirbybruno

          "Bad democrats are still better than the best republicans." - kos

          by sarahnity on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:24:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, why? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too
        He has to be in Sweden to be charged according to Swedish law, which is why the Swedish want him there and why a "Skype chat" is a total non-starter (of course that'd be a non-starter with pretty much every police force on Earth).
        I'll easily grant that he has to be in Sweden to be charged, if you say so.  But exactly why would Swedish authorities pass up any offer to talk with him in any way at all, even if not on Swedish soil?  Why can't they talk to him, make whatever decisions they want, and then announce that they'd like to charge him, and want him back on Swedish soil to do so?  Surely talking to him is better than not talking to him?  And don't police travel outside of their jurisdictions all the time to talk to people?   They might not be able to arrest anyone outside of their jurisdictions, but if they're only at the interviewing stage, I don't actually see why it would be such a big deal for them to simply send an investigator or two to the UK to interview Assange before deciding whether or not they want him back in Sweden to proffer charges.
    •  This nails it pretty much (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah, for 6 too

      The diarist has an agenda which is only tenuously - however emotionally - related to the Assange case. There has always been a group here full throated in their dislike of Assange and wikileaks for a variety of reasons... But...

      Getting back to the issue of political witch hunt, The Swedish prosecution's behavior on this has been, well, unorthodox in many ways. One is noted above, insistence that to accomplish "questioning" he must first be their prisoner on Swedish soil. But second, the original prosecutor judged the accusations as insufficient to bring any charges and dropped them. A different prosecutor was then politically appointed to the case and re-opened it with all guns blazing. An international arrest warrant was then issued and, prior to his detention in the UK and shortly after Wikileaks release of the US State Dept cables, Assange somehow got elevated to Interpol's Most Wanted list. It is wildy unusual for anyone to be on that list based on the kind of allegations here, whether you choose to call it "rape" or not. There are probably many thousands of ex-boyfriends or husbands running around the world whose partners have accused them of some kind of sexual misconduct, including rape or worse, yet they don't get on such a list. Only when their name is Assange and they happen to have really pissed off the world's superpower and other powerful governments by exposing their lies and war crimes does that happen. Yeah right, no political element at all here. Wake up!

      "I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it." - Ray Bradbury

      by chuckvw on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:59:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, lovely. So not only do the victims really have (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kirbybruno, cfm

        secret agendas, but so do I.  Apparently everyone who thinks someone accused of rape should have to stand trial for rape is in on the conspiracy.

        (FYI: I had been a long Wikileaks and Assange supporter, and can back it up with links to comments from long ago)

        And yes, try not to pass out from the shock of it, but sometimes different prosecutors have different opinions on a case, and people aren't always charged the first time they're brought in on a case.  It happens ever so rarely, and by ever so rarely, I mean "the majority of the time".

        There are about a thousand EU arrest warrants issued every month.  Not the slightest bit rare.

        Interpol is called in on problem cases.  If this isn't a problem case, I don't know what is.

        And even if every conspiratorial notion you held was true, he still should not get a "get out of being tried for serious charges" card.  The rule of law exists for a reason.  And even if the Swedish government was simply involved in some giant international conspiracy it still wouldn't be reason to ignore the alleged victims here, or worse, blaming them / accusing them of being plants.

        And, FYI, the only reason the UK is expediting him is because their courts found the charges credible.

        •  I didn't say it was secret (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dfarrah, for 6 too

          Usually, when a prosecutor drops charges, another doesn't receive political instructions to pick them up again. If there is anything "normal" about this case - from its very inception to now - normal has been profoundly redefined.

          I was very much referring to this specific case. It's you who are trying to extrapolate some more general argument from that, a bit disingenuously IMO...

          Apparently everyone who thinks someone accused of rape should have to stand trial for rape is in on the conspiracy.
          And, yes, I do think these alleged accusers are participants in a conspiracy... not all those who have ever or ever will allege rape. How ridiculous!

          "I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it." - Ray Bradbury

          by chuckvw on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:03:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You do have an agenda (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dfarrah, twigg, for 6 too, joshd

          Rei, that's pretty obvious to anyone who reads your diary. The entire case against Assange smells to high heaven -  he said, she said, at best, a false flag operation at worst.

          Assange may not be a saint as a male (who is? and would we want one?) but as a human, he has done an enormous service to the cause of justice and transparency. What Wikileaks has disclosed  is nothing short of war crimes perpetrated by the US. Those war crimes are continuing unabetted as US drones continue to murder totally innocent civilians around the world.

          Assange went against a ruthless empire and there can be little doubt as to what that empire is capable of (look at the horrors the modern centurions are inflicting upon the people of Afganistan, Yemen and now Somalia. Look at the support they provide for one of the worst violators of human rights in the world today, Israel. Look at our national security state and the encroachment on civil liberties). Surely what they concocted against Assange - on the flimsiest, barely existent evidence - is what will be used tomorrow  against pesky "leftists" in the US.

          I can't believe people would recommend this diary - a hatchet job if there ever was one. If this is what passes for substance at DK, then this little place has really lost more relevance than I thought.

    •  I suggest you re-read the diary. Jeez. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rei
  •  Assange Is A Weasel (4+ / 0-)

    His true colors as an egomaniacal hypocrite showed through early when, shortly after the Wikileaks brouhaha started, he demanded that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resign.  The arrogance of this demand should have opened people's eyes.

    Then this self-proclaimed defender of human rights and open information then fetched up as a tool of Russia Today, the pro-Putin Kremlin mouthpiece network.  RT is knee-deep in acting as cover for the freedom-crushing activities of the "chekists" that are ruling Russia.  While he was at it, Assange found time to give warm greetings to Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah - an organization not only with American blood on its hands but also found to likely have assassinated Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.  The same Hezbollah that continues to help prop up the murderous Syrian regime.

    Don't apologize for being critical of Julian Assange.  He doesn't deserve your respect.  His latest gambit - a warped idea that the Ecuadorian Embassy can shield him from the British and Swedish legal systems - shows that it has always been about him.

    Moral of the story: yes, openess and secrecy are legitimate issues for debate.  But don't fall into lockstep behind Pied Pipers like Julian Assange - a man whose flawed character has done more harm than benefit to his cause.

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:20:16 PM PDT

    •  totally agree... his latest Ecuadorian escapade (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      auron renouille, Ellid

      has made it clear he's not exactly concerned about human rights on principle, is he?  

      "The death penalty is never about the criminal. They've already done their worst. The question is always "will we join them"?" - jlynne

      by Hopeful Skeptic on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:47:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary should have resigned. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dfarrah, for 6 too, ukit

      would not exactly be much of a loss either. Though whoever replaces her would be as much of a servant to the empire and the corporatocracy as she is. It's just really annoying to see her going on and on hypocritically accusing Syria of this, Iran of that while Bahrain, Saudi arabia and israel get the customary "not helpful" comment.  

      Seeing the craven critiques of Assange here, someone who, along with bradley Manning should be considered for the Nobel peace price, makes me wonder who exactly is commenting here. These are democrats or wolves in sheep's clothing?

      People should go and read their naomi Klein on branding and chomsky on manufacturing consent. Bull pens, anyone?

      •  Wolves In Sheeps Clothing? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ellid, for 6 too, Hopeful Skeptic

        Since when did demanding that Hillary Clinton resign become the litmus test of a good Democrat?

        If people want to be President of the Julian Assange Fan Club that is their business.  They are welcome to argue the facts.

        But questioning the motives of those who disagree with you is usually is a good sign you have a weak case.

        "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

        by FDRDemocrat on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:45:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How have either advanced the cause of peace? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pimutant, ballerina X

        I don't see that Julian Assange has done much in the last couple of years beyond behave like a brat, revive the old "she's a lying whore stereotype," and act like he's above the law.  

        As for Clinton resigning, give me a break.  She was no more going to resign over this than Eric Holder will resign over Fast & Furious.

        •  What law did Julian Assange break? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          for 6 too, ukit

          the law that protects murderous empires, corrupt regimes and lying so-called "diplomats"?

          the law that has brought put MCM journalism into the gutter and turned pretenders like Keller of the NYTs into enablers and apologists for the empire?

          That tape on collateral murder was more valuable than anything you saw in any paper or TV in exposing the brutishness of the American occupation of Iraq. And subsequent revelations about the hideousness of the occupation of Afganistan iwas enough to make any good person puke.

          As for the suffering of the people should Romney come to power, suffer indeed many will. But if Obama wins we'll just buy a couple of years.

          here on DK I don't see anyone calling to task those so-called Act Blue Senators that people here campaigned for, like Merkeley, who signed that travesty of a letter from the senate urging betrayal of America in favor of killing Iranians. Why? because they all need lobby money. Each and evry one of those 44 senators are traitors - so much worse than anything Assange has ever been accused of, because they are willing to sacrifice the US's best interest for campaign funds. That dynamic will not change if Obama wins. If Romney does then it'll really hit the fan to the point that it'll be impossible to ignore. And that may be bad but a necessary medicine. We are all doomed if people don't wake up and soon.

          As for the people who may be suffering, well, they can revolt, can't they? we could at least have a decent third party candidate if the people really wanted one. But all people seem to want are iPhones, NFL, reality show, vent on DKs and generally complain a lot.

          People need to see the truth - of what's in store for them - and they won't, unless the pain becomes serious. Peasants don't revolt unless their stomachs are empty - that's the lesson of history for our species. The people running around on DF crying a river about losing the recall in Wisconsin are really wasting their time.

          •  I repeat my question (0+ / 0-)

            What have either Wikileaks or Julian Assange done to advance world peace?  I am not talking about what laws he may or may not have broken, or the brutality of the Afghanistan war (which was not unknown before Wikileaks).   Do you have any actual examples?

            •  Nothing. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cylonbabe, expatjourno

              Wikileaks and Assange have done nothing to advance the cause of World Peace.  Is that their mission?  I thought the mission of Wikileaks was to expose the bullshit secretly undertaken and lied about by governments in an effort to have regimes/administrations held accountable for the slaughterhouse they've made of this world.

              Assange's personality or personal conduct, whatever it may be, is incidental to that mission.  

              Advancing World Peace sets a very high bar...which is probably better applied to ELECTED officials rather than journalists.  So, having said that, what have the people you've voted for done to advance the cause of World Peace?  Better yet, what have recent Nobel Peace Prize recipients done to advance the cause of World Peace?  Funny how Wikileaks sorta makes that a hard question to answer given the information they have exposed.

            •  Two answers (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              4kedtongue, expatjourno

              1. Obama has done zilch to advance "world peac" (more the reverse, I'd say) and there he was - collecting his pricve - something that has now forever besmirched the reputation of the peace price.

              2.Assange and Wikileaks helped shine light in lots of different places. Tunisians and egyptians credited much of the Arab Spring (now brought low by US and friends) to Wikileaks revelations. It's not that we don't know that American committed war crimes in Iraq and behaves like a murderous torrid bully in Afganistan. It's that we have proof. It's that we can see what made our military tick, and just how heartless and jaded our "brave" soldiers are (I am blaming the military system and a cynical government that does indeed use them as imperial centurions, just like Rome did). The videos and revelations strengthened the hands of a great many good people around the world who justifiably rage with cause against imperial over-reach and the god-awful behavior of our centurions. In that it is no less than a prize to the dalai lama (who also did not "advance the cause of peace" did he?). The Nobel peace price was not always handed to the victo, you know? sometimes it's given to encourage the bonds and cause of common humanity.

              So basically Wikileaks and Assange's commendable commitment to the cause of transparency helps empower common people everywhere. No, the Afganis have not yet been able to kick out their oppressive brutal conquerors and Iraq is still broken, and the idiots in America are still beating the drums for bombing Iran. But a day will come and common people - not empires, not pretenders to 'democracy", will start winning a few - here and there. bear in mind that despite recent disheartening events, it's not forever that Egypt will be run by the military.

              Assange separated the sheep from the goats. We know who the friends of humanity are and who isn't. And the cynicism about Obama and whether he gets elected or not is one of the dividends, since we now can see that democrats are made of the same corporate/empire/selfishness-cowed materials that republicans are. That was something important to know and we awe Assange for shining a light into the darkness of the souls of the corrupt leaders everywhere. Some day, humans, real people will need to be able to reach across the aile to fight together against the real enemy., not some make-believe ones concocted by our MCM.

            •  Wikileaks and Assange have advanced justice. (0+ / 0-)

              And as the saying goes, no justice, no peace.

              Barack Obama: Gives people who tortured other people to death a pass, prosecutes whistleblowers. Change we can believe in!

              by expatjourno on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:20:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  There was an interesting article in the NYT today (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hopeful Skeptic, ballerina X

      That pointed out that for a civil liberties/transparency crusader, Assange sure picked an odd place to seek asylum; Ecuador's treatment of journalists has been less than sterling for several years, and their current president has some very unsavory connections.  

      As for Wikileaks itself...I agree that Assange himself has done its reputation much harm, at least in mainstream circles.  

  •  I guess I'm not that into WikiLeaks (11+ / 0-)

    I mean....it's cool and all. But it's not "Go Soft On Rape" cool.

  •  the timing sure is suspect (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joshd, for 6 too

    He raped not one but two women within a month of becoming public enemy number one in the US.

    JA is a lot of things but he's not stupid.  The idea that he would suddenly exploit these women when he did after having no prior history of sexual misconduct of any kind strains credulity.  

    •  Who says he doesn't have a prior history and who (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rei, sarahnity, Ellid, TFinSF

      says he isn't precisely that stupid?

      He could be just as stupid as many extremely self-centered people are - too stupid to think they can't get away with whatever the fuck they like.

      Just because you like him doesn't mean he doesn't have quite the history of bad behavior with women and that he is stupid as hell when it comes to self-control.

      And to use these assumptions to make a claim that essentially says that the testimony of the women is a lie is pretty ballsy.

      "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

      by Unduna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:07:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As always, the presumption of evidence... (0+ / 0-)

      is with the guy you like and the girls are just liars.  And famous people never do stupid things, right?

      And since when have you interviewed women he's slept with in the past?

      •  All I can say is: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

        What exactly is too late?  Then they have sex and go to events together and live together for a while.  Give me a break.

        I'm barely aware of the Assange saga, but these women's accusations are pathetic.  It's women like these who make a mockery of real victims.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:59:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  define "real victim" (0+ / 0-)

          Also, please read the entire blockquote.  One of the accusers stated that Assange had refused to leave her home, and that she was barely able to sleep because she was afraid of what he might do.  I've been in situations like that, and whether you find it credible or not, there are times when one's safety demands endurance rather than attack.

          •  I read the diary (0+ / 0-)

            again.

            And that these women are given any credence at all is amazing to me.

            Neither allege threats, the use of weaponry, being so restrained that they couldn't refuse, etc.  Both of them say that JA used a condom after refusing to do so at first [and I don't know what to make of the alleged torn condom issue], so he apparently was cooperative at some point.  

            Then they hang out and sleep together over a week.  Both women free to come and go as they please, with resources [friends, money] that they could have used for 'escape.'  Neither contact authoriities to get him evicted from their homes, even though they are clearly free to move about the city.

            Give me a break.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 10:21:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Does anyone know if Swedish law... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Unduna

    permits "the right to remain silent"?

    If Assange travels to Sweden to be questioned as part of an investigation prior to being charged, then does he have "the right to remain silent" and not answer any of the investigators questions?

  •  This is embarrassing. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rei, Unduna, Ellid, pimutant, cfm, TFinSF

    I'm stunned how many people on this website are willing to disassemble the allegations and make some sort of personal assessment as to whether or not they constitute "rape" under Swedish law.

    Maybe Assange is innocent.  That's why trials are conducted.  But this blind defense of him, to the extent that some longtime users seem to be asserting the rights of men to rape women, is disgusting.

    "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

    by auron renouille on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 01:59:59 PM PDT

  •  No-one has actually been found guilty (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jrooth, Kamakhya, twigg, for 6 too

    Yes, Assange is an alleged rapist, but, in fairness, the people making the accusation haven't proven their case and we ought to extend the presumption of innocence until proven guilty to him, rather than rushing to judgment because rape is so vile a crime. The diarist does seem to be taking her own horrible experience and projecting it onto the Assange case. I don't know whether Assange is guilty or not, I don't know whether this matter is part of some attempt to get Assange onto American soil and into the clutches of our injustice system.  Nobody on here does.  I don't think it brings any clarity to the situation to make assumptions either way.  Equally, I don't think Assange's attempt to seek asylum proves his guilt.  What it says to me is that he doesn't think he will get a fair trial and may well end up being shipped to the USA.  When you consider the barbaric way in which Bradley Manning has been treated, it's hard to blame Assange for wanting to avoid such a fate.

    •  The key is a trial. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TFinSF

      A trial is how these things are resolved.  Which is what he's trying to bail on.  Not a trial in a third-world kangaroo court, but in Sweden, a first world nation, with charges backed up as credible in the UK, another first-world nation.

      •  Which doesn't justify what you are doing here (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dfarrah, twigg, theraindog, for 6 too

        You can't simply transfer your own bad experiences to Assange, much less make accusations of supporting rape against those who disagree with you.  

        Imagine, for one moment, that you are Assange, that you are innocent and genuinely expect to be extradited to America if Sweden gets hold of you.  What would you do, under those circumstances? Would you risk ending up being abused like Bradley Manning?  I think most people would do exactly what he has done.

        •  Oh, I don't blame anyone for trying to get (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TFinSF

          out of a negative result to themselves, innocent or guilty.  It's human nature.  I do, however, greatly blame Kossacks not involved in the case for supporting the circumventing of the rule of law in a serious case, tremendously downplaying the nature of the crime, and automatically assuming that the women are lying about being raped, simply because they like the guy.  It's one thing to understand why a person would want to avoid being charged, but all another to support bypassing the rule of law and carving out exceptions even on serious crimes for people you like.

          And, FYI, I'm sure Assange knows quite well that the "Sweden will extradite me" argument is pure BS, since the UK, which he's had no trouble being in, has an even more controversial record with deporting people to the US than Sweden, and if he was in Sweden, there would be two countries that would have to sign off on his extradition (both Sweden and the UK) instead of one, plus he'd be the highest profile detainee on the planet, making it virtually impossible to "secretly bypass the legal system" or anything of that nature.  But it's a convenient excuse for not having to face trial over serious charges.

    •  Also, Manning is a soldier (0+ / 0-)

      And the UCMJ is not the same as the regular criminal law code.  Not quite the same.

  •  Another personal experience (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dfarrah, for 6 too

    I'm sorry for every person who has been raped or coerced. That should not have happened.

    In our town, a local activist, black, was being inconvient for the local status quo. He was falsely accused of raping a white woman. Three trials and he almost got hard time.

    So I can't evaluate the Assange case because I've been avoiding it. But from the start I have not trusted the timing of it. I do not trust accusations of rape that are pursued for political purposes. Unless Sweden normally agressively pursues rape suspects internationally, I don't trust their police or their court system to be fair. I am afraid that -- one way or another -- the two women were or are being used.

    This is why I am ambivilant about this situation. I don't feel as if I'm trying to prevent justice from happening. I'm afraid, in this situation, that since I don't believe justice is the driving motivation I'm afraid justice is unlikely to happen.

    Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

    by julifolo on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:50:37 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, but this was all to convenient.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joshd, for 6 too

    It's my opinion, obviously I wasn't there. I believe 99% that Assange has been set up. I don't believe these charges would be brought in Sweden, I believe he would be extradited asap to the US, of this I have little doubt.

    Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture

    by nezzclay on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:04:49 PM PDT

  •  I don't know if Assange is guilty (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rei, sarahnity, auron renouille, pimutant

    But I trust the Swedish legal system to figure that out more than I trust Assange or the Ecuadorian legal system.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 03:18:23 PM PDT

  •  From an Assange barrister (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    for 6 too

    I assume the facts stated in this article dated Dec 2010 in the Herald Sun by James D. Catlin, a Melbourne barrister who acted for Assange in London earlier this year, are verifiable.

    Sweden's reputation is on trial in Julian Assange case

    Both women boasted of their of their respective celebrity conquests on internet posts and mobile phones texts after the intimacy they would now see him destroyed for.

    Ardin hosted a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the ‘crime’ and tweeted to her followers that she was with the “the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing!”

    Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these and thereby destroy evidence of Assange’s innocence She has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends.

    Their sms texts to each other show a plan to contact the Swedish newspaper Expressen before hand in order to maximise the damage to Assange.

    •  The actual charges posted above counter that. (5+ / 0-)

      The party was planned in advance, and at the party Ardin was telling her friends about the "violent" sex that happened and how she didn't feel safe.   The SMS texts were after the charges had been filed and after they had been contacted by a newspaper, and they said they were trying to make light of the situation.

      Of course situations are complicated.  Which is why we have trials.  Instead of just using the statements of a defense attorney as reason why a person should be able to avoid having to face charges for the serious crimes they're accused of.

  •  I 've recc'd your diary, because it's a voice.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dfarrah

    ....that should be heard.

    But as other commentators have noted, it's only one side of the story: the side of the alleged victims.

    You have described cases where the women themselves are unsure if they had bad sex or non-consensual sex. They are unsure, until after they have engaged in consultations and obtained information from a third party.

    There is no doubt, that rape is possible in these contexts. But given that there are two sides to every story, isn't it also possible that there are cases where the alleged victim may come to have doubts about consensuality, while the alleged perpetrator had genuine confidence in the consensuality?

    We're not talking about the case where someone is abducted off the street and then gives their "consent" at gunpoint. Even if the perpetrator genuinely believed that consent had been given at that point, it is clear that the perpetrator knew that consent would not be given without duress: so the perpetrator definitely had "Mens Rea"

    But in the scenarios described in the Assange case, how can you prove that Assange had mens rea? Without mens rea, isn't it possible for a women to genuinely believe she was raped, while her partner genuinely believed that consent was given? How are such cases to be decided?

    This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

    by xynz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:17:16 PM PDT

    •  In court. That being the entire point, here. nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kirbybruno

      "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

      by Unduna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 04:21:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Umm, no. The entire point of the diary is... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, RogueBandit, dfarrah, for 6 too

        ...is to present the alleged victims side of the story and only their side of the story.

        If the point of the diary was about fair adjudication, then it would have given us both sides of the story.

        This Space for Rent. Expressions of interest from SuperPACs should be submitted in the form of a reply to one of my comments.

        by xynz on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 05:12:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't say the diary was a court of law - (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kirbybruno, Rei

          and I certainly didn't maintain that the diary was an attempt at fair adjudication.

          How absurd.  What a bizarre twist of both the diary and my comment.

          Both sides of the story get heard in court.
          That's how that works.
          We don't decide who is right or wrong here, but we, as a progressive community, need to advocate for no one being above the law, no matter who they are.

          And that is the point of the diary - that Assange should not be defended in this community against having to face the claims in court, and no, Assange should not be protected by anyone from having to face the claims in court.

          He is most certainly not above the law.

          And anyone can extradite him. That's a moot point.

          "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

          by Unduna on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:11:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You really don't think Assange's side of the (0+ / 0-)

          story hasn't been plastered all over this site?  Really?  The endless "he's being charged with merely sex without a condom"/"the girls are lying and probably CIA agents" talk?  The very reason I wrote this diary was to present the side that's not being discussed here.

  •  We have no idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicolemm, for 6 too

    if these accusations were real or not.   The whole story smells from miles away like manufactured accusations to shut Assange down.  To silence the voice of wikileaks.  

  •  Getting a bit sick myself (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicolemm, for 6 too

    at all the diaries that assume that if a man is charged with a sex crime, then he is automatically guilty of that crime until proven innocent.  If he's guilty, lock him up.  But give him his defense first.   I too stand with the victims of rape, but only after they're proven to be victims.  
    Having known a man, a good and decent man, whose life and career were ruined by the mere accusation of impropriety (he was acquitted when the accuser admitted that she did it for revenge, but still had to give up his job and move out of state), I can say it's very important not to jump to conclusions... especially when the accused is someone who a LOT of powerful people have it in for.

    •  Is that the case here? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rockhound

      I find more assumption of innocence here than guilt.

      We don't know if Assange is guilty or not and this is not really the place to decide.

      Should he be charged (so far he has not) and tried, a court is the place to decide and that is basically what this diary is saying.

      And can you imagine people who do some good things are also capable of bad as well?

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:33:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  count me as another (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    for 6 too

    who does not see clarity on who the victims are here

    -7.75, -6.05 And these wars; they can't be won Does anyone know or care how they begun?-Matt Bellamy

    by nicolemm on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 06:58:08 PM PDT

  •  Extraordinary Rendition & Torture by the U.S. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Unduna, BradyB, Kamakhya, for 6 too, Rei

    has had many bad consequences including the clouding of this case.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 07:03:55 PM PDT

  •  Here's one of the problems I have. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joshd, expatjourno
    No form of rape is a "minor crime",
    I don't believe that.  If you specifically DEFINE rape to include a number of minor offenses, you can't then try to say, from that, that all those minor offenses are now major because you have classified them that way.

    I've read the long explanation.  I've been prepared for some time to read some final explanation of this that would make me feel disappointed, because I have few illusions about the persistent depravity of mankind.  However, I still haven't read or heard anything that makes me think this rises to the level of major offense.

    I accept what you are saying that some women don't want to admit to themselves that they have been raped and only come to grips with the enormity of it later, and that may be what happened in this case.  However, even given that, I see no reason to think that there's a prima facie case to believe that anything major has taken place here.  The man still stands accused of having unprotected sex with women that would have had protected sex with him.  The inner psychological narrative that was going on inside the mind of the alleged victim, in such a case, might be very relevant to the victim and the amount of sympathy and concern she is due, but it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the MAJORness of the offense described here.

    I realize I'm probably going to be HR-hammered for saying that, because, as your title suggests, some people expect a knee-jerk non-analytical reaction to the word rape without regard to circumstances.  I don't feel that way.  

    I'm still ready to be disappointed in Julius Assange when the time comes, but it's not here from what I've read.

    As for Assange accusing her of being a honeypot...  That was one of the first thoughts on many minds here, including mine, before Assange ever had the chance to accuse her of any such thing.  The circumstances of the Wikileaks case give rise to such Cold-War-ish suspicions.  The subsequent treatment -- torture -- of Bradley Manning here in the US, and even more than that, the concerted attempt to defame Bradley Manning in the public eye, which has no legal purpose whatsoever, HAS to make us take pause.

    •  Oversimplifying the charges (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TFinSF, sarahnity
      The man still stands accused of having unprotected sex with women that would have had protected sex with him.
      So, because I had been willing to make out with my rapist before the event, does that mean that he also had the right to do more with me than I allowed?  It's a sick path of reasoning that you're walking down, violating the fundamental nature of consent.

      And beyond that, that's just one of the four charges.  The reason she even consented to that was the nature of another of the charges, that he had been aggressively going after her and pinned her down trying to have sex with her; she only consented to sex with a condom to try to prevent sex without a condom.  Even the under-duress sexual act that was "consented" to went beyond the level of consent.  Something I know very well, having agreed to do stuff to my attacker to try to stop him from getting inside of me, only to have him continue trying to get inside of me later.

      And that's just two of the four charges.

      If you become HR-hammered, it's for deliberately trying to downplay rape by selectively choosing and distorting the case in order to defend a person you like against even having to stand trial.

      •  I don't acknowledge that it's rape, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        expatjourno

        so I'm not downplaying anything.  And I don't think you have a clear case here for rape.  At best, you're projecting motives onto the alleged assailant, and other motives onto the victim, and from that, hypothesizing a crime.  That's not how justice should work.

        And I still reject the one size fits all categorization of any crime involving sex as being rape.  If we choose to go down that path, we can then no longer say that no form of rape is a minor crime, because we've watered down and fuzzied up the meaning of the word.  It's as if I said all murders are major crimes, but then I proceeded to redefine murder to include things not traditionally called murder and that are arguably not at the same level of egregiousness.

    •  No means no (0+ / 0-)

      It's a really simple concept.  You seem to have chose an apt username since it seems to elude you.

      If she said, "no sex without a condom" and he proceeds to have sex without one, that is sex without her consent.  How is that so hard for you to understand?  

      What part of "No means no," do you find so confusing?

      "Bad democrats are still better than the best republicans." - kos

      by sarahnity on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:38:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see sex without a condom, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        expatjourno

        and possible misunderstandings leading to it as rape.  Again, you're redefining rape to make it so loose that it no longer carries the force of the words "no form of rape is a minor crime."  

        Was this about a misunderstanding about condoms during the heat of sex?  I don't know.  But that kind of thing does happen and it isn't always rape.  In fact, as was quoted in the diary:

        The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
        The issue of pinning her arms is a separate matter of contention.  Let's focus just for a moment on the condom.  He "did something" with the condom that she believes caused it to malfunction and then ejaculated without withdrawing.  

        From this, we gather that he did agree to using the condom, she did consent, the condom failed, and she blames him, and that by Swedish law, this can be construed as rape.

        Condom malfunctions do happen.  Even if we were to assume that Assange plotted to make the condom malfunction, the proof of his intention is not the kind of thing that would be worthy of a prosecution in the United States.  And I don't see it rising to the level of a major crime, unless you choose to define rape down to such a petty level that it loses its moral force.  

        And that's if we assume that Assange intended to have sex with a malfunctioning condom.  Given the circumstances, and his apparent voluntary choice to use the condom when requested, proving his lack of intent seems nearly impossible, raising the question then of why this is a serious international case leading to requests for asylum.  People aren't hounded like this without better reason than broken condoms.  I suspect the real reasons are political.

        •  A simple question (0+ / 0-)

          If (IF!) a man purposefully has sex with a woman without a condom when she has explicitly said that she will only have sex with a condom is this rape in your view?

          Yes or no?

          "Bad democrats are still better than the best republicans." - kos

          by sarahnity on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 10:27:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Answer: (0+ / 0-)

            If she demands he use a condom for sex, then:

            1.  If he intends to use a condom and it fails, no.

            2. If he says, "No!" and then forces his penis into her anyway against her will, then yes, that's rape.

            3. If he says "No!" and she relents, the matter becomes too subjective to evaluate it as rape.  If the alleged victim chooses to avoid conflict and relents, at that point, is not grounds for calling it rape.  It might be psychologically the same as rape, but there are too many subjective issues involved for it to be a major crime in the same category with real rape.

            4. If he lies to her, and has sex with her without a condom, while she thinks that he is using a condom, that's a crime, but that's not rape or even close to it.  That's deception.  

            Compare this, for instance, to the following analogy: A man who knows he has AIDS seduces a man who doesn't and convinces him to have unprotected sex by lying to him about it.  Is that rape?  The courts in the US have already weighed in on that, and it's not.  It's not even murder, if the victim dies.  It's awful, but it's not rape.  

  •  Being accused of rape... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno

    Is not the same thing as being guilty of rape. You want respect for the alleged victims while giving none to the potentially innocent accused. This diary and its supporters are no better than the fools smearing the alleged victims.

    You deserve each other.

    •  Apparently you haven't read so many comments (0+ / 0-)

      I don't people here claiming Assange is guilty of rape although quite a few seem to certain he is innocent and/or being set-up.

      What some are saying, including the diarist, is he should not be above the law.

      Perhaps you can read all of my comments here and point out where I claim he is guilty. Or perhaps you would find the opposite: that I warn people this is not a court and we have no basis to decide his guilt or innocence; and that he is not above the law; and that he should in any case benefit from due process of the law; and that he has the right, if he choses, to request asylum under international law.

      Because the rule of law and the process of law matter.

      But if you think not, perhaps you need to go to a place where there is no rule of law and just rule of men to see how that works, particularly for people falsely accused.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 09:26:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think this is the rule of law. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        expatjourno

        It might be more of a vendetta of the type that has seen Bradley Manning tortured and publicly defamed for gratuitous reasons by our own government.  The rule of law seems to be suffering as of late.

        •  Manning and Assange are totally different people (0+ / 0-)

          And totally different cases.

          Assange played and used Manning, and is still using Manning.

          Assange is a celebrity with rich patrons, a book deal, a TV show and lots of friends in high places.

          Manning has a prison cell and a trial that will probably keep him behind bars for decades, long after Assange retires in comfort as a minor celebrity.

          I'll thank you not to compare or confuse the two.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 03:27:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Assange's Case Being Handled Uniquely by Sweeden? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dumbo, expatjourno

    I'm working from memory here, and possibly some of what I think are 'facts' below are wrong. Please feel free to correct me if so.

    If I recall correctly, the accusations were said to have been initially assessed by a local prosecutor, who decided that the evidence did not justify prosecution on rape charges. Shortly after Assange had left Sweden, authorities at a much higher level became involved, reactivated the inquiry, and initiated the request for extradition.

    I believe that Assange's supporters were stating at the time that the decision by higher authorities to overrule the local prosecutor in such a case was extremely unusual under Swedish law.  Further, I believe they stated that a request for extradition for a suspect who had left the country under in such a situation was absolutely unique.

    If this is true, it is reasonable to wonder if this situation is being used to gain custody of Assange for reasons unrelated to the alleged rape. Sweden could instantly dispel these concerns by agreeing to limit their investigation, trial, and punishment (if any) of Assange to the rape charges. In addition, in such unique circumstances, it seems entirely appropriate for Sweden to offer reassurances that Assange will not face extradition to any third country on the basis of unrelated charges.

    As the diarist has eloquently stated, there is no reason for Assange to be granted immunity to a criminal investigation on these charges on the basis of his unusual "celebrity" status. Conversely, there is no justification for him to be prosecuted with unique aggression, or for the charges against him to be used as a pretext to seize him for what what be essentially "extraordinary rendition".

  •  Interesting article on potential U.S prosecution (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, rodentrancher

    http://www.smh.com.au/...

    Against this background it is reasonable to ask just what evidence there is of a US desire and indeed intention to prosecute Assange.

    The short answer is a great deal of evidence — from the public statements of the US government, Australian diplomatic reports released to Fairfax Media under freedom-of-information laws, and disclosures in the pre-court martial proceedings concerning US Army private Bradley Manning who faces 22 charges, including the most serious one of "aiding the enemy" by disclosing classified military information. There has never been that much secrecy about the US government's determination to pursue WikiLeaks.

a gilas girl, Deep Dark, Renee, northsylvania, yellowdog, PeterHug, richardak, dsb, xynz, Matilda, Gareth, cfm, 714day, susans, Wee Mama, sarahnity, ceebs, Boris Godunov, sviscusi, VexingEyes, wordene, moltar, Catte Nappe, Gator Keyfitz, Chun Yang, exlrrp, JayBat, auron renouille, mungley, tomjones, Pozzo, furi kuri, azrefugee, guppymoo, oortdust, Tirge Caps, G2geek, Unit Zero, jiffypop, caul, HudsonValleyMark, Militarytracy, Alice Venturi, terrypinder, EJP in Maine, rb608, noemie maxwell, palachia, Ginny in CO, leftynyc, turdraker, Rogneid, Unduna, terjeanderson, kishik, Knucklehead, sideboth, tommymet, rcbowman, Kingsmeg, edwardssl, rl en france, koNko, KenBee, bubbanomics, Yamaneko2, PapaChach, Dauphin, TooFolkGR, democracy is coming, CA Nana, doingbusinessas, Stripe, Ian Reifowitz, Statusquomustgo, kml, Quicklund, Thinking Fella, Drama Queen, FlamingoGrrl, timewarp, LSophia, campionrules, puakev, Matt Z, ballerina X, Strabo, Transactivist, letsgetreal, jhop7, gchaucer2, OIL GUY, mconvente, GAS, FG, skohayes, filby, FDRDemocrat, smartdemmg, alnep, Drewid, petulans, matching mole, rodentrancher, palantir, Ellid, Louisiana 1976, McGahee220, litoralis, Carol in San Antonio, CanyonWren, pvlb, smash artist, dRefractor, MKSinSA, Denise Oliver Velez, RedBlueNoMore, joe from Lowell, JaceInVA, Larsstephens, BlueOak, Railfan, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, Laurilei, TFinSF, stegro, Observerinvancouver, klompendanser, angelajean, CayceP, samanthab, nickrud, ZedMont, MGross, annieli, Jasel, redlum jak, Quite Contrary, slowbutsure, kirbybruno, Eclectablog, marleycat, Cinnamon, thomask, Muskegon Critic, Empty Vessel, antimony, peregrine kate, Liberal Mole, StateOfGrace, bakeneko, Friendlystranger, SoCalSal, ParkRanger, erush1345, stormicats, Prairie D, Gay CA Democrat, Mindful Nature, IndieGuy, LefseBlue, pimutant, Deep Texan, stellaluna, DollyMadison, jan4insight, reginahny, restondem, doroma, OllieGarkey, johnny wurster, Kinak, Zornorph, GoGoGoEverton, SwedishJewfish, JayRaye, Jerry J, patchmo13, katiekitteh, Mannie, Smoh, Avilyn, Corvinus, rcc53

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site