Skip to main content

A strange case gets even stranger.

Few around here would be surprised at the fact that this ongoing international saga hasn't garnered much attention on this side of the pond. I guess our traditional media has more important stories to cover instead. (insert your favorite latest media non-story to saturate cable-news 24/7 here) Julian Assange has become somewhat of a folk hero, if not here in the U.S., certainly in other countries around the world from Ecuador to Australia to parts of Europe. Through his close association with WikiLeaks-- the online aggregator of classified information obtained through hacking and whistleblowers like Bradley Manning -- Assange has earned more than his share of scorn and contempt from governments around the world, and especially the U.S.

Assange currently resides at the embassy of Ecuador in London, having been granted political asylum last summer, and is now waiting to see if the Scandinavian country will attempt to extradite him to face allegations of sexual assault by two women. (for not wearing condoms) Assange also faces the threats of extradition for totally other reasons by both Britain and the U.S.

However, the prosecution team in Sweden now seems to be mired in a state of upheaval:

The Sydney Morning Herald:

The top Swedish prosecutor pursuing sexual assault charges against Julian Assange has abruptly left the case and one of Mr Assange's accusers has sacked her lawyer.

The turmoil in the Swedish Prosecution Authority's effort to extradite Mr Assange comes as another leading Swedish judge prepares to deliver an unprecedented public lecture in Australia next week on the WikiLeaks publisher's case.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority wants to extradite Mr Assange to have him questioned in Stockholm in relation to sexual assault allegations by two women.

Although the reason for the lead prosecutor's abrupt departure is not yet known, Australian Fairfax Media Limited, distributor of the Sydney Morning Herald and many other media outlets in Australia and New Zealand, has obtained court records from Sweden revealing that Prosecutor Marianne Nye's replacement is a less experienced prosecutor named Ingrid Isgren.

But disruptions in the case have not been exclusive to the prosecution team.

Political activist Anna Ardin, one of the two accusers (and has purportedly worked with a group that has connections to the CIA) petitioned the Swedish court last week to replace her own attorney on the case, controversial Swedish lawyer, Claes Borgstrom, amidst claims by the plaintiff that Borgstrom has spent more time talking to the media about the case than he has with her. According to Ardin, Borgstrom referred most of her questions about the case to his secretary and other assistants. She also told the court that she has lost complete confidence in Borgstrom as her chief legal advocate.

Apparently, Ms Ardin's retainment of a new advocate, Elisabeth Massi Fritz, has now been approved by the court.

But that's not the only news happening regarding the Assange case. The turmoil seems to be widening.

More from the SMH:

Swedish Supreme Court judge Stefan Lindskog will deliver a lecture on ''The Assange affair, and freedom of speech, from the Swedish perspective'' at the University of Adelaide on Wednesday.

Mr Assange condemned Judge Lindskog's planned discussion of his case.

''If an Australian High Court judge came out and spoke on a case the court expected or was likely to judge, it would be regarded as absolutely outrageous,'' he said.

Justice Lindskog is chairman of the Supreme Court of Sweden, the highest court of appeal. In announcing his forthcoming lecture, Adelaide University said that ''as one of Sweden's most eminent jurists, he is uniquely able to provide an authoritative view of the Assange affair''.

I don't even know if Scalia would give a speech on a case currently before the court. But then again, he's done some pretty strange stuff in the past.

I also don't know if Assange will ever be safe from prosecution by the U.S. Our Justice Department has waged all-out war on whistleblowers. Their use of the antiquated and arcanely used Espionage Act has been relentless. Transparency is a rare commodity in America these days. And the lack of it is steadily degrading any semblance of democracy in this country.

Please support Bradley Manning here.

And if you're so inclined, you can support Assange and the WikiLeaks Coalition here.

Originally posted to markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 06:52 AM PDT.

Also republished by Anonymous Dkos.

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 (176+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, limpidglass, One Pissed Off Liberal, Words In Action, corvo, jnhobbs, Calamity Jean, tardis10, detroitmechworks, Lisa Lockwood, mofembot, penguins4peace, dkmich, ChemBob, artisan, figbash, Tool, Dallasdoc, nookular, lennysfo, DRo, Mentatmark, Horace Boothroyd III, sfarkash, lotlizard, david78209, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Involuntary Exile, jck, Smoh, FG, Bisbonian, Carol in San Antonio, jbob, DFWmom, PeterHug, Heart of the Rockies, Gordon20024, ffour, bsmechanic, BlueDragon, deben, opinionated, greenbastard, Brecht, J M F, zerone, Johnny Nucleo, wayoutinthestix, zerelda, joe shikspack, Shockwave, Tamar, AllanTBG, MsGrin, ruscle, sawgrass727, tegrat, Sychotic1, some other george, Hope Despite All, Simplify, Dianna, 3rdOption, old wobbly, tgrshark13, gooderservice, Preston S, ColoTim, ammasdarling, Rizzo, thomask, Timothy J, Marihilda, ask, Diana in NoVa, priceman, commonmass, triv33, prettygirlxoxoxo, The Jester, cybersaur, Wreck Smurfy, shaharazade, snoopydawg, Anorish, carpunder, ZenTrainer, YucatanMan, johnel, viral, dewtx, GAS, No one gets out alive, newpioneer, real world chick, Agathena, Orinoco, where4art, 3goldens, poligirl, Sandino, greycat, merrily1000, edsbrooklyn, Deep Harm, ewmorr, imokyrok, SilentBrook, Alexandre, yoduuuh do or do not, kurt, AZ Sphinx Moth, devis1, MeToo, Mr Robert, zinger99, basquebob, susakinovember, Sun Tzu, GayHillbilly, la urracca, renzo capetti, northsylvania, FrY10cK, anodnhajo, peacestpete, JVolvo, Arahahex, bronte17, sea note, chimene, bookwoman, wader, nogo postal, Turbonerd, TheMomCat, mint julep, kathny, ichibon, ogre, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, Laughing Vergil, Empower Ink, Friendlystranger, sb, MrJayTee, PhilJD, slowbutsure, blueoasis, HiKa, Tirge Caps, eztempo, nota bene, JDWolverton, Chaddiwicker, mickT, mythatsme, Nada Lemming, myrealname, Lujane, Joieau, glorificus, glitterscale, MRA NY, Dumbo, NonnyO, PeteZerria, tofumagoo, SadieSue, kaliope, science nerd, Tam in CA, allenjo, Lorikeet, ZhenRen

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

    by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 06:52:48 AM PDT

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

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

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

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

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

    Great job on the diary mark. Thanks much.

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

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

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

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

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

      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

      I wish I could be less cynical.

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

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

      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            [ Parent ]

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

              interested in airing their proverbial dirty laundry.

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

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

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

                ... Unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                [ Parent ]

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

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

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

              feels like a setup for involuntary extradition...

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

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

              •  Rei - (0+ / 0-)

                We get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

            on the transparency front.

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

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

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

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

            [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

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

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

              Perhaps do some research.

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

              Done

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

                Perhaps do some research.

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

                Done

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

                  Think I'll go find one.

                  But thanks for participating.

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

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

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

        •  ? (5+ / 0-)

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

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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              (Rhetorical question. I know the answer.)

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

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

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

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

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

        •  exactly (6+ / 0-)

          This is the key point for me.

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

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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

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

            •  Why not? (5+ / 0-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      [ Parent ]

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

                        The Prosecutor has refused to question him.

                        Because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

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

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

                Enough is enough.

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

          That's all.

          Your accusation is completely gratuitous.

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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um... (7+ / 0-)

        Criticizing the victim is victim blaming.  

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

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

        [ Parent ]

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

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


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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

            [ Parent ]

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

              You state definitely that "sexual assault" was involved.

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

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

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

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


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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

                Geez.

                Look, I tried to be reasonable...

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

                [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

                47 is the new 51!

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

                [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

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

                    47 is the new 51!

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

                    [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

                      Our priorities are so out of whack.


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

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

                      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

                          [ Parent ]

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

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

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

                            Fuck you and every rape supporter like you.

                            Sincerest regards,
                             Rei

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

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

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


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

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

                            [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

                    [ Parent ]

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

                  were raped? With their mothers nearby.

                  Where the hell is your outrage?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

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

                    And lastly...

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

                    Thank you very much.

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

                      slippery slope.

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

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


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

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

                      [ Parent ]

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

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

                1) "The woman spent days with Assange"

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

                2) "Had sex with him"

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

                3) "Cooked"

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

                4) "And ate meals with him"

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

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

                5) "Laughed with him"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                9) "And this same woman, Anna"

                Wrong woman.  Again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              privilege" and you know it.  

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

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


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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

          [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

            [ Parent ]

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

              women never lie about rape.

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

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

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

                10% of rape cases are false reports.  

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

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

              aren't ya'?

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

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


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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

                says it all.

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

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

                History is rife with examples.

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

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

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

                [ Parent ]

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

                  And the Iraq War is bad karma.

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

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


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

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

                  [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

              [ Parent ]

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

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

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

            •  First off... (0+ / 0-)

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

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

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

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

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

            What a concept.

    •  one point (6+ / 0-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

      [ Parent ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

        As for the official sworn statement of the prosecutor:

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

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

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

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

      "which any sane person should highly doubt"

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

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

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

  •  Read what he's accused of again. (9+ / 0-)

    I'm not gonna say he's guilty because I haven't seen all of the evidence and I wasn't there. But if what he is charged with is true it is definitely rape by any progressive standard. There was a diary not so long ago here showing that what he allegedly did was coercion and something women who are raped sometimes have to face in order to survive.

    I'm upset about Bradley Manning too but Julian Assange should be NOBODY'S poster boy for an unjust prosecution of a whistleblower. I don't know if he did it. But if he did he definitely should be found guilty and sent to prison.

    Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

    by Matt Z on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:31:11 AM PDT

    •  My take also on the sexual assault charge. However (6+ / 0-)

      the problem is that the involvement of our government and other governments who would love to shut Wikileaks down makes the whole case suspect. It's not fair to the victims, but OTOH, the interference by various governments in the case means it's not fair to Assange either.

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

      by Tamar on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:49:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the whole problem (7+ / 0-)

        I don't think Sweden is doing anything but enforcing its laws about sexual assault.  If the CIA tried to suborn a prosecutor there and the prosecutor went public, the whole thing would collapse.  (And if they wanted to do an extraordinary rendition, it would be much easier to get Britain to go along with it.)

        But the US keeps trying to deal with this illegally (or at least is perceived as such).  For example, they tortured Bradley Manning.  Why?  He's not a deep security risk, although, unlike Assange he can probably be charged with willful disclosure of some amount of classified material.  But that could have been handled in open court.  Now, if I were a judge, I'd throw the case out because the defendant was tortured and denied access to legal counsel.

    •  exactly (32+ / 0-)

      this is all kinds of hinky: To start off with, Assange was charged with "unsafe sex" that is, not using a condom, and teh first prosecutor threw out the charges for lack of evidence. A second prosecutor over- road her, and re- charged Assange. Now in Sweden, the offense is a fine of something like $250 or so. A fine. When Assange left for the UK, he asked the prosecutor is they wanted to talk to him before he left and they said no. But once he got to GB, and the wikileaks thing blew up, then, out of nowhere, not using a condom became an extraditable offense. May I remind you that there is no evidence at all. And Assange has not been charged with anything yet, they claim they want him for "Questioning". To add to the hinky, Ecuador offered a CCTV link to Sweden to answer the questions, something that is often done in Europe, in minor legal matters, but Sweden again refused, and would say why. They would not send Assange a list of the questions they wanted answered, either. And, as the diary says, Sweden refuses to give their word, neither to Assange, to his lawyer nor (and here's the kicker) to Ecuador, that Assange will not be turned over to the US. Amazing.

      When GB said they were going to invade the embassy and take Assange, that is when the hinky meter went off the scale. GB quickly backed down, but now, in violation of international law, will not let Assange leave the embassy, and this makes him a political prisoner. GB won't even let the Embassy fly in a copter, for fear Ecuador would put Assange on it and fly him out of GB.

      Let me ask a question guys, suppose you had sex with a person in, say a Slavic country, then, after you got back to the US, that country tried to extradite you for unsafe sex. Would you consider this laughable? Of course you would, and the US government would, too. But that is the matter, summed up.

      "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

      by azureblue on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:13:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will add (21+ / 0-)

        that, in both cases, after Assange slept with each girl, the couple went out and had breakfast the next morning and there were no charges filed.  That is, in each case, Assange left on good terms. At first look, it seems like a case of jealousy, escalated out of proportion, or maybe a case of lover's regret. But certainly, the offense does not rise to sending in the troops to haul him away..

        "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

        by azureblue on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:19:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that means absolutely little (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, sviscusi

          as to the validity of the charges and is frankly a smokescreen

          In the time that I have been given,
          I am what I am

          by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:11:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In what world does it mean "absolutely little?" (6+ / 0-)
            in both cases, after Assange slept with each girl, the couple went out and had breakfast the next morning and there were no charges filed.
            that means absolutely little as to the validity of the charges and is frankly a smokescreen
            So a woman is raped, and then has breakfast with her own free will with the "rapist" the next day?

            And that makes sense to you?  And continues to stay with him for almost a week?  That makes sense to you, too?

            Stockholm Syndrome set in that fast, did it?  Why do you think that is?

            •  you show you know absolutely nothing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund, sviscusi

              about how people think and especially about rape

              You are not worth my time and frankly your hypocritical dismissal of this simply because it is about your hero makes me more then a little ill

              As Folk said, if this was a coach there'd be a full scale riot here

              Go educate yourself

              In the time that I have been given,
              I am what I am

              by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:29:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Order (0+ / 0-)

              Direct from the testimony:

              ... When she returned she served him oatmeal porridge, milk, and juice. She had already eaten before he awoke, and had spoken with a friend on the phone.

              The Assault

              They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had
              sex again and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only
              over the head of his 5 penis; but she let it be. They dozed off and she
              awoke and felt him penetrating her....

              Care to actually learn about whart you're talking about before you pontificate about it?
        •  False. (0+ / 0-)

          One can guess that Assange ate multiple breakfasts with AA (whom there are no rape charges concerning), but there is no testimony to this effect.  The breakfast with SW was before the incident he's charged with.  And I'm sorry, but your "rape victims are supposed to do X, Y, and Z or they weren't really raped!" post is frankly insulting on a personal level.

      •  You are right that this is not rape under our laws (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund, duhban, raincrow

        Sweden has very different laws and standards

        According to the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, Sweden has 53 rapes per 100,000 population — easily the highest number of reported rapes anywhere in Europe. The statistics paint less a picture of predatory Swedish men, and more one of female empowerment and destigmatisatisation of victimhood.

        The number of convictions trebled after 2005, when the government widened the threshold for a sexual offense to be considered rape, by lowering the amount of coercion which needs to be involved. Wherever the accusations against Assange fall within the spectrum, Swedish authorities are still unconvinced that the laws are tight enough, and are discussing an amendment which would lower the threshold again.

        They have varying levels of rape as well
        Under Swedish law, consensual sex can be classified as ’rape’.
        (snip)
        A preliminary investigation is directed at Julian Assange with regards to an allegation of ’minor rape’ in the context of consensual sex. The allegations against Assange are the consequence of legislation changes in Sweden that have stretched the definition of rape.

        Sweden has three categories of ’rape’:

            gross rape (4-10 years imprisonment)
            ordinary rape (2-4 years imprisonment)
            minor rape (0-4 years imprisonment)

        They also note
        In Sweden, reported cases of ’sexual violence’ have increased dramatically since 1975 by 534%. UN statistics from 2010 show this epidemic of ’rape’ reports. In 2008, Sweden had 53.2 reported ’rapes’/100.000 people per year (compare to Finland 17.2, Norway 19.8, Denmark 7.3). Sweden’s rates of reported rapes are over double those of the UK.
        The Guardian has "the full allegations against Julian Assange". They give the accounts of what the women said happened with some supporting information.

        It isn't the simple story that you tell even though both clearly stated they had consented to sex with him...
        Without his refusal to use protection and then to not take an HIV test quickly it would likely not have come to prosecutors attention. For instance

        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.
        (snip)
        Miss A phoned Harold to say that she and Miss W had been to the police, who had told them that they couldn't simply tell Assange to take a test, that their statements must be passed to the prosecutor. That night, the story leaked to the Swedish newspaper Expressen.
        (snip)
        Harold has independently told the Guardian Miss A made a series of calls to him asking him to persuade Assange to take an STD test to reassure Miss W, and that Assange refused. Miss A then warned if Assange did not take a test, Miss W would go to the police. Assange had rejected this as blackmail, Harold told police.
        and the first prosecutor did not drop all charges nor was he out of the country before he knew there were potential legal issues
        well here is the BBC timeline

        If this happened in the United States we'd have huge reason to blame the government. We have no laws against what the allegations are. Sweden does.

        He was in Sweden because of their support for whisteblowers and he wanted residency there. (Noted in some of the articles).  However their laws against sexual offenses are what they are
        If the allegations are true it doesn't sound much like Sweden is acting abnormally for Sweden.

        •  You are informed and are being fair and sensible (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban

          Which is why you will not get any traction at Dailykos. But thanks for the strong effort.

        •  Sweden has a long way to go before it *catches up* (0+ / 0-)

          with the rest of the developed world.  You talk about the government widening what's considered rape as though it's a bad thing.  Even still in Sweden there's cases like the 15 year old who was gang raped by three men, but only the first could be charged with rape because she'd given up resisting by the time he was done and never fought the latter two.  Assange is damned lucky he's charged in Sweden and not elsewhere.  A few years for rape, for F*ing a sleeping girl to work around her refusal to consent to sex?  In DC he'd be facing 20 for that same charge.

          And yes, there are varying levels of rape in most places.  In DC, for example, there are three levels.  Assange's case would be the middle severity.  There's also a lesser severity where it's not a "no means no" or "incapacitated" case, but simply a failure to get a "yes".  The standard in most parts of the developed world is "yes means yes".

      •  What international law is violated? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        The UK has not violated Ecuadoran territory in the form of her embassy grounds. So just what I"international law" is the UK breaking when they aim to arrest a wanted suspect should be enter UK territory?

        Here on DK Mr Assange is being treated like he is royalty, one not subject to the laws we mortals must obey.

        I do not know if Mr Assange is guilty of these sex crimes, but the more I hear from his defenders them weaker their arguments appear to me.

      •  Completely false. (0+ / 0-)

        1) "To start off with, Assange was charged with "unsafe sex" that is, not using a condom"

        Right, because unprotected sex is illegal in Sweden?  That's why the Swedish cannot reproduce except by cloning?

        Meanwhile in the real world, here's the actual charges, as spelled out in the EAW:

        1.  On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from
        moving or shifting.

        2.  On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

        3.  On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

        4.  On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

        Charge #1 is "unlawful sexual coersion".  Charges 2 and 3 are "molestation".  Charge #4 is "rape".

        2) " and teh first prosecutor threw out the charges for lack of evidence."

        False.  First off, it's always funny to see Assange fans bringing up the first prosecutor as "exculpating" evidence when you all hated Finne at first.  Finne was a last-minute appointment brought in because the case was opened on a weekend.  Under her watch, first news that Assange was being investigated was leaked to the press, which isn't supposed to happen unless he's charged.  Then she quickly charged him for rape and issued an arrest warrant, even though he'd never refused to cooperate in any way, shape or form.  There was (justifiably) a huge backlash, and the arrest warrant was cancelled by dropping the rape charge.  The other charges (concerning AA, not SW) were never dropped.  Given that the rape charge was dropped before the victim's statement was even typed up, let alone before any forensics were done, it was rather trivial for the womens' legal representative to reopen the case with an appeal to the review board - it only took a matter of days.  Marianne Ny was appointed to the reopened case.

        Of the three initial investigating police officers, two supported two charges of rape and three lesser charges, while one (Krans, who ironically Assange fans seem to hate the most) only supported one charge of rape and three lesser charges.  Ny agreed with the majority and pursued the five charges.  The Svea Court of Appeals reduced it down to the four.  The Swedish Supreme Court upheld this.

        3) " Now in Sweden, the offense is a fine of something like $250 or so. A fine. "

        False.  One of the most absurd Assange myths.  You really think rape is a $250 fine here?  The maximum penalty is 4 years in prison for all charges combined.  The rape charge itself has a 2 year maximum.

        He's damned lucky this was in Sweden, which has some of the most lax rape laws in the first world.  In DC, for example, an equivalent charge would have a maximum 20 year sentence, and the conditions would be a lot worse.

        4) "When Assange left for the UK, he asked the prosecutor is they wanted to talk to him before he left and they said no."

        False.  And Assange's lawyer got an official condemnation from the Swedish Bar Association for lying about this.  He's lucky he didn't end up with perjury charges and lose his license.

        5) ". But once he got to GB, and the wikileaks thing blew up, then, out of nowhere"

        False.  The text logs between the prosecutor and Assange's attorney have been leaked.  Would you like a copy?  I ran them through Google Translate for the bulk then took the time to use a Swedish-English dictionary (plus my knowledge of Icelandic) to correct it.  Basic summary: The office tried again and again for a month and a half to get him to come in.  Assange's attorney kept lying to them and convincing them that he was just about to come in, leaving the prosecutor's office in confusion and disbelief when he didn't come.  Multiple times.  Even the day before they issued the warrant, they contacted him and told him they'd much rather prefer that they don't have to do this, and if Assange would come in voluntarily they'd prefer it.

        6) "May I remind you that there is no evidence at all."

        There's reams of it, and enough to convince multiple Swedish courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, that there's probable cause he committed it.  Just for beginners, the victim has a mile-long history of paranoia about unprotected sex, to the point that not only did she not once allow it in her 2 1/2 year relationship with her previous boyfriend, but made him get STD tested anyway.  The very day of the incident, when Assange sent her out to buy him breakfast, she sent text messages (which are on record) and made phone calls to a friend, complaining about how mad she was getting at Assange for continually trying to sleep with her unprotected despite her refusal and for bossing her around.  This is before the incident.  She also ran into her brother, who described her as looking shaken when the topic turned to Assange. She went home with the food.  They ate and she went back to sleep.  Note that Assange himself doesn't dispute any of the above.  Now we're to believe that suddenly she woke up, became fully cogent, and changed her whole life's philosophy on unprotected sex to sleep with a guy who right before she went to sleep she was complaining about?  Sorry to be frank, but "bullshit".  There's a reason he keeps losing court cases, he really has no defense.

        7) "And Assange has not been charged with anything yet, they claim they want him for "Questioning""

        No, they claim they want him to indict him.  The questioning is a formality.  Sworn statement of the prosecutor:  "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

        8) "And, as the diary says, Sweden refuses to give their word, neither to Assange, to his lawyer nor (and here's the kicker) to Ecuador, that Assange will not be turned over to the US. Amazing."

        Yeah, so damned amazing that they refused to violate their own extradition law and violate their constitution by usurping the judiciary in making a ruling on a nonextant extradition request which law clearly states the courts get to rule on before the government issues its ruling.

        No, he's Julian Assange, Liberal Hero, he should be treated by a different set of laws than everyone else who is charged (anklagad) with a crime!

        9) "When GB said they were going to invade the embassy and take Assange, that is when the hinky meter went off the scale. "

        Yeah, because countries are in such a habit of ignoring rulings from their supreme courts, right?

        10) "in violation of international law, will not let Assange leave the embassy"

        "International law" gives no nation the right to force another nation to accept their declaration of "asylum".  And FYI, Ecuador is rather an international rogue when it comes to embassies.  Just months before Assange fled there they'd gotten in trouble with using their diplomatic pouches in Italy to smuggle in cocaine.

    •  The last thing I want to do it is illegitimize... (31+ / 0-)

      rape accusations of any kind.

      But according to the Guardian U.K. who have seen most of the evidence on record, it looks kinda ambiguous.

      "We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant.

      "The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards.

      "Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."

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

      by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:15:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and for this, the european union (12+ / 0-)

        not to mention the august british judicial system, was totally prepared to completely disregard habeas corpus, a corner stone of our freedoms and rights.

        nice.

        Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with a-holes - William Gibson. (-9.75 / -9.05)

        by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:37:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I did (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        susans, duhban, sebastianguy99, blw

        look at the record and if true, it is rape:
        The Guardian

        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.

        Holding her arms and pinning her legs, that kind of thing, it is more than just "not using a condom".  There are all kinds of reasons why rape victims don't act like we think they should - call the police right after.
        I don't know if these allegations are true. but if he did what the two women say, he had sex without their consent.  With the second woman, it appears he had sex without while she was asleep, so she was not able to consent.  
    •  Prosecution is way too convenient... (14+ / 0-)

      for those that want to get Assange.  If he gets extradited to Sweden, undoubtedly he'll then be extradited to the US so that our government can charge him under the Espionage Act and put him in jail forever.

      A key question to always ask about political actions is, "Who benefits?"  Taking down Assange would be a warning to all would-be leakers of information that has been classified.  Wikileaks has done an amazing job of exposing government hypocrisy and so our government wants to destroy him.  

    •  This Guardian story is almost 2 1/2 years ild... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gooderservice, ichibon, HiKa

      But, as of now, I haven't seen anything new to rebut their assessment.

      10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange

      The sexual assault evidence looks ambiguous to me. But we'll find out if the trial ever takes place, I guess.

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

      by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:14:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rubbish (17+ / 0-)

      The charge of the broken condom wouldn't even be a crime in the UK and one supposed victim apparently didn't even know she was a victim and continued to sing Assange's praises for a week afterward, while he continued to stay at her apartment. She later deleted her  social media posts and then made the charge.
      There is nothing normal about any element of this prosecution. Assange's bail was set higher and was more restrictive than a man (accused in the same court on the same day)  of murdering his wife on their honeymoon. Even the urgency of an Interpol arrest warrant and the haste with which the British police acted in this case is extraordinary.

      •  Our government is quite adept at propagandizing... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeToo, zinger99, gooderservice, ichibon

        So I don't really blame people for thinking these sexual assault charges are true.

        Hell they may well be true. But the article I linked to (above your comment) makes the charges appear to be ambiguous.

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

        by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:29:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sweden is not part of the UK (0+ / 0-)
        The charge of the broken condom wouldn't even be a crime in the UK
        Remedial geography. law, and logic lessons are in order.
        •  Then why the hysteria (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          markthshark, gooderservice

          the  Interpol arrest warrant, the rush to arrest him, the draconian bail conditions, the threat to invade the territory of a foreign country. If Saudi Arabia wanted a witch arrested-they recently executed a woman for witchcraft, would the UK comply because it is a crime in Saudi Arabia? I note while we are talking about broken condoms we are not talking about the war crimes wikileaks uncovered. but of course, this is object of the exercise. This is about naked power, not law.

          •  I'm sorry, (0+ / 0-)

            but what sort of rush is 1 1/2 months of pleading with his attorney to get him to turn himself in?  What is so damned unsual about an interpol warrant for a felony crime where the person fled to another country and refuses to go back?

            Your Saudi Arabia example fails on several fronts, the most prominent being:

            1) Assange is ruled to be handed back not under extradition, but under surrender, under the EAW process.  It's more akin to a state in the US handing a prisoner off to another state, and only applies to within the EU.  The default assumption for surrender is "yes", while the default assumption for extradition is "no".

            2) The Saudi Arabia example would be refused for many reasons, the simplest of them being double criminality.  All extradition requests require the double criminality standard be met (it must be a crime in both nations).  EAW requests require it only for non-felony crimes.  Assange is charged with a felony, and all three British courts (including the Supreme court) found double criminality on all four charges.

            •  Assange is charged with nothing (0+ / 0-)

              and still is charged with nothing. Given that fact, and the fact that the charges would not be crimes in the UK, how does one explain the hysteria, the bail and the threat to invade the sovereign territory of another nation. Nothing normal about any of this.

              Assange is charged with a felony, and all three British courts (including the Supreme court) found double criminality on all four charges.
              This is invented.
              •  False. (0+ / 0-)

                Assange is anklagad för brott (charged with a crime).  He is not åtalad (indicted).  Some people have been trying to argue that åtalad means "charged", but this is an absurdity.  Assange's charges were granted by a judge and he's had two in-court appeals with his defense defending him, up to and including the Swedish Supreme Court (both found probable cause that he committed the crimes).  How on earth is that not equivalent to the US term "charged"?  Furthermore, the three UK courts reviewing his appeal also found that he's been charged.

                The four charges are:

                1.  On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

                2.  On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

                3.  On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

                4.  On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

                Will you not be happy until he's åtalad?  Then you should be shouting for him to go to Sweden because he can't be åtalad when not in Swedish custody.  Once åtalad the trial must commence within two weeks.
      •  You are so grossly misrepresenting the case... (0+ / 0-)

        ... and I've posted enough corrections already that I'm not going to do all that again (your "haste" comment, your "tweets" comment, your description of the crime, etc).  I will mention the one thing I haven't had a chance to bring up yet that you kindly raised: all four of the charges against Assange have been determined by the British courts to be equivalent crimes in the UK.  Not just "a" court - the lower court, the high court, and even the UK supreme court.  And FYI, bail is proportional to flight risk and ability to pay.  Are going to argue that Assange and his wealthy celebrity backers can't pay?  Are you going to argue that he's not a flight risk?

    •  iirc - didn't Assange offer to be... (11+ / 0-)

      questioned in Britain regarding the whole thing? If so, why did Sweden not take him up on his offer? Why are they insisting that he can only be questioned in Sweden?

      not only that, iirc, Assange is only wanted for questioning relating to those allegations and in fact he did turn himself in to British authorities under the warrant that was issued for his questioning and was released on bond. he then fought extradition in court in Britain, both contesting the allegations legitimacy as well as the extradition request in his arguments. when he lost the bid to quash extradition.

      to my best recollection, Sweden has still not filed any charges against Assange, so perhaps their evidence isn't as compelling as is believed.

      and my original questions stands - why didn't Sweden just go ask him questions in Britain? as far as i know, he was even recently still open to that...

      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

      by poligirl on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:57:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  why should they have to? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi, sebastianguy99, Quicklund

        if this was anyone else there wouldn't even be the barest hint of support for that but because Assange is apparently some folk hero here to some it's okay?

        That's hypocritical

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:15:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "why should they have to?" (8+ / 0-)

          Because if they really wanted to, they would do that.

          And if we're all being honest, this isn't about Assange, it's about protecting Obama.  

          •  rotfl you are hilarious (0+ / 0-)

            and that's the kindest thing I can say about you

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:30:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks. I love personal comments that (5+ / 0-)

              distract from any and every issue mentioned.  It speaks volumes.  

              •  you are defending a rapist (0+ / 0-)

                that speaks volumes

                In the time that I have been given,
                I am what I am

                by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:44:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  sorry that should be alleged rapist (0+ / 0-)

                  In the time that I have been given,
                  I am what I am

                  by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:45:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  "alleged" and not even charged either... (6+ / 0-)

                  at this point, he's not been charged/indicted or anything else other than simply wanted for questioning...

                  if the allegations were that strong, they would have indicted him already.

                  but don't let that get in the way of your narrative...

                  also, you are exactly what's wrong with the justice system - you're convicting without any even charges being filed fer crisssakes...

                  The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                  by poligirl on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 03:59:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  lol they have (0+ / 0-)

                    the case has been argued in absentia already

                    please get a clue

                    In the time that I have been given,
                    I am what I am

                    by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 04:55:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no it has not. no charges have been filed against (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gooderservice

                      Assange, only an arrest warrant wanting him for questioning, period. and he turned himself in a couple years ago in Britain and fought the extradition order in court and lost. he has offered to be questioned in Britain by Swedish authorities, but i guess they don't want justice for the victims badly enough to go there to question him.

                      if you continue to argue that charges have been filed and already argued in absentia, i want back up for that claim.

                      and if you cannot find it, i want an apology from your sorry ass for talking out of it.

                      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                      by poligirl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:04:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you are clueless and yet want to insults me? (0+ / 0-)
                        On 18 November 2010, the Stockholm District Court ordered Assange detained in absentia, on request by prosecutor Marianne Ny. As basis for the ruling, the court stated Julian Assange to be suspected on reasonable grounds to have committed våldtäkt,[25][26][27][28] olaga tvång, and two cases of sexuellt ofredande— which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation",[29] "sexual assault",[30] "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment".[22][26][27][31][32]
                        As special reasons for the detention, the court named a risk of the suspect absconding or avoiding justice; that the penalty for the alleged crimes is at least two years imprisonment; and the lack of any obvious reason not to detain.[33]
                        The decision was appealed by Assange on November 22 to the Svea Court of Appeal, which rejected the appeal two days later,[2] and to the Supreme Court of Sweden on November 30. The Supreme Court decided not to consider a further appeal as no principle was at stake
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                        In the time that I have been given,
                        I am what I am

                        by duhban on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:19:39 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Wrong. He is charged. (0+ / 0-)

                    But he is not indicted.  It's a lingusitics issue.  He has been "anklagad för brott" - charged with a crime.  And in fact he's had multiple courts (up to and including the Swedish Supreme Court) rule on his case (against him, deciding probable cause that he committed the crimes in question).  Being anklagad is roughly equivalent to the US and UK processes of being charged.  He has not however been "åtalad" - indicted.  This is a late-stage process which must be done immediately before the trial (there are time limits), and hence cannot be done in absentia.

                    Anyway, you were saying?

                    •  please source that claim. nt (0+ / 0-)

                      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                      by poligirl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:05:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Gladly, but which claim? nt (0+ / 0-)
                        •  anklagad för brott means accused of a crime... (0+ / 0-)

                          please source where he has been more than accused.

                          and the warrant is not a warrant for trial but a warrant for questioning, so that does not count as 'charged'...

                          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                          by poligirl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:08:29 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Anklagad för brott is the Swedish equivalent (0+ / 0-)

                            of the American and British standards of "charged" - issued by a judge, who must have a finding for probable cause for the accused to have committed the crime.  The accused can appeal the arrest warrant and have their case heard by a court of law.  Which Assange did.  Twice.  And lost twice.  In what manner is the best translation of such a process not "charged"?

                            The only additional step that can be taken is for Assange to be åtalad.  But since that clearly can't happen outside of Swedish custody, using the fact that he hasn't been åtalad to defend his not going into Swedish custody is obviously circular.

                            and the warrant is not a warrant for trial but a warrant for questioning
                            First off, it should be noted that there are multiple warrants here.  For an EAW to be issued, there must be a decision to prosecute made, atalbeslut.  Again, pretty darned hard to argue that a decision to prosecute somehow means the subject isn't charged.  Also pretty darn hard to argue that it's "just for questioning".  In fact, an EAW cannot be issued "just for questioning".  And in the sworn statement of the prosecutor:
                            5.  Julian Assange’s surrender is sought in order that he may be subject to criminal proceedings.
                            And...
                            Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
                            As mentioned earlier for the domestic warrant, it can't be issued without probable cause of commission of the crime, is issued by a judge, there's a full appeal process (which each case found probable cause of commission of the crimes), etc.  Here's the official English press release of the judge's ruling:
                            Mr. Assange detained in his absence
                            2010-11-18
                            As a result of the court's decision to detain Mr. Assange in his absence, an international arrest warrant will be issued.

                            Director of Prosecution, Ms. Marianne Ny, today requested the District Court of Stockholm to detain Mr Assange in his absence.

                            At the hearing on the detention issue, the District Court decided to detain Mr Assange in his absence, on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. To execute the court’s decision, the next step is to issue an international arrest warrant.

                            Due to the ongoing investigation and the parties involved, the prosecutor cannot at the moment give more information concerning the suspicions or which investigation matters have been conducted.

                            In what manner is "detained on probable cause suspected rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coersion" merely "a warrant for questioning", as you claim (something which, by the way, does not exist).

                            Anyway, as for all this, don't take my word for it.  Take the British court system's, who reviewed these very claims.  For example, the lower court's conclusions:

                            In summary:

                            1.  There is an unequivocal statement that the purpose of the warrant is for
                            prosecution.

                            2.  I am satisfied, looking at the warrant as a whole, that the requested person
                            is an “accused” within section 2(3)(a) of the Extradition Act and is wanted
                            for prosecution under Section 2(3)(b) of the Act.

                            3.  The court must construe the words in the Act in a cosmopolitan sense and
                            not just in terms of the stages of English criminal procedure.

                            4.  As this warrant uses the phrases that are used in the English language
                            version (and indeed the Swedish language version) of the EAW annexed to the
                            Framework Decision, there is no (or very little) scope for argument on the
                            purpose of the warrant.

                            5.  In those circumstances the introduction of extrinsic factual and expert
                            evidence should be discouraged.

                            6.  However, having looked at the extrinsic evidence (perhaps wrongly) the
                            fact that some further pre-trial evidential investigation could result in no
                            trial taking place does not mean this defendant is suspected as opposed to
                            accused.

                            7.  The information provided by Ms Ny proves strong, if not irrebuttable,
                            evidence that the purpose of the warrant is for prosecution.

                            8.  The evidence provided by the defence does not in any way undermine Ms
                            Ny.

                            9.  As a matter of fact, looking at all the circumstances in the round, this
                            person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person and is wanted for
                            prosecution.

                            What more do you need?
                          •  snow 'em with info eh? here's the deal... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nada Lemming

                            Anklagad för brott means accused of a crime.

                            åtalad för brott means charged with a crime.

                            this is gonna be really easy for you cuz it's yes or no and gets you on record.

                            Has Julian Assange had formal criminal charges filed against him in Sweden?

                            The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                            by poligirl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 11:23:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Snow them with info"? (0+ / 0-)

                            So you don't want info?  Clearly not, you seem to much prefer boldfaced assertions.

                            Describing the process isnt enough?  Pointing out that what you describe isnt even possible isnt enough?  Linking to a court ruling on the very topic isnt enough?

                            Here, how about you argue with the dictionary for a bit and come back when the two of you have come to an understanding.

                            charge verb, (S) anklaga, framföra anklagelse, beskylla någon för något, lägga skulden på någon
                            Grammar comment: transitivt
                            Explanation: ålägga, rekommendera
                            Or maybe you prefer the other way around?
                               
                            (E) charge verb, (S) anklaga, framföra anklagelse, beskylla någon för något, lägga skulden på någon
                            Grammar comment: transitivt   
                            Explanation: ålägga, rekommendera
                            The same word (anklaga) means both "accuse" and "charge".  Related to the noun anklagelse, meaning an accusation or a charge.  To formally anklaga someone means to formally file an anklagelse.  And the process is essentially the same as for charging someone in the US or UK.  

                            As stated previously, the only thing possible to do more is to åtala him.  And FYI, åtala can also be translated as
                            "accuse".  But in a legal context, it means indict.  And it starts a time limit on when the trial must begin, so it can't be done when he's not in custody.

                            So tell me.  He's been anklagad.  He cant be åtalad.  What more can the Swedes do to satisfy you?  Hmm?  

                            (To answer yiour question in one word: YES.)

                          •  ummm that's an anyone can edit dictionary... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nada Lemming, gooderservice

                            like wiki... how about an actual non anyone can change it. how do in know you didn't change it is what i'm saying... anyone can. that's why when you write academically, you cannot use Wikipedia as an official source...

                            i am looking for sourcing, cuz i have done a lot of reading of swedish criminal procedure today - most of my day, and i cannot find one thing to back you up and tons of stuff... the only thing i can think to back up your statement about being charged is that well, the 2 women are charging (meaning accusing) Assange with rape/molestation, but that does not equal formally charged...

                            in fact, formal charges cannot be filed in Sweden without the investigation being completed and to do that, they must question Assange. in short, according to Swedish law, Sweden cannot have formally charged Assange at this point.

                            now the prosecutor did some nice tap dancing for that international warrant, and it came under scrutiny in court to the point where even she had to justify and explain that she intended to prosecute even though charges have not been formally filed. which to be honest is kind of hinky. and it's been pointed out everywhere that the official line is still they need to question him (and then i guess charge him, but boldly saying you are going to charge someone before you even question him is kind of suspect - it basically lends itself to the conclusion that the prosecutor has already decided and is biased, which is pretty, again, hinky when we are talking a case of he said she said, which is what it is.

                            meanwhile, Assange has offered to make himself available for questioning, he turned himself in when he heard about the international warrant, spent a week in prison, got bail and fought extradition through the courts, and when it did not rule his way sought asylum to protect himself from the possibility of political vengeance, which for some reason Sweden won't give assurances on.

                            so you can put up as many people's dictionary entries as you wish, but unless you can link me to something official that says Sweden has formally criminally charged Assange, i do not believe he has and literally every single thing i read today, from the academic, to the governmental, to the journalistic, says that he has not been formally charged. and those also tend to says that Sweden has to finish their investigation part (questioning  Assange) before they can charge him.

                            for me - especially considering how many governments consider Assange pretty much criminal and considering that there are open grand juries in this country dealing with Wikileaks and considering that these allegations showed up both a month after a really controversial Wikileaks release and also after the girls had spoken to each other - essentially, given all that is going on in this whole case and the surrounding issues, i would hope that we would want to dot all the Is and cross all the Ts when making our accusations.

                            so that's where i stand. and i thank you for giving me the impetus to do some pretty heavy research today. i've never delved far into other countries' justice systems and this was pretty interesting stuff... was good sparring with you. :D

                            The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                            by poligirl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 04:32:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really, your response is to attack the dictionary? (0+ / 0-)

                            First, FYI, it's not open like a wiki - all additions have to be voted on before they are included:

                            You can make a contribution to the People's dictionary by answering translation proposals. When enough people have accepted a proposal, it will be added automatically to the People's dictionary. You may also suggest how to extend or change the lexicon information, including synonyms, definitions, inflected forms, compositions and examples. Just look up the word and click on the tool sign to the right of the translation. All submitted proposals will both be reviewed automatically and be judged by other users before they are entered into the People's dictionary.
                            You can't just go there and change it.  But seriously, you are arguing with a dictionary now?  That's really desparate.  Don't like that dictionary?  Let's take the next one down the list in the Google search for "Swedish dictionary" whose corpus contains the word "anklaga" - here you go.
                            anklaga {vb} (även: åtala, ifrågasätta)
                             to impeach {vb}
                            anklaga {vb} (även: meddela, prägla, upplysa, tjalla)
                             to inform {vb}
                            anklaga {vb} (även: beskylla, förmana, anfalla, ålägga)
                             to charge {vb}

                            anklaga {vb} (även: sätta i lära, anställa genom kontrakt)
                             to article {vb}
                            anklaga {vb} (även: klandra, angripa, åtala, beskylla)
                             to accuse {vb}
                            anklaga {vb} (även: värdera, uppskatta, beskylla, tillrättavisa)
                             to tax {vb}
                            anklaga för
                            to tax with
                            anklaga {vb} (även: belasta)
                            to incriminate {vb}
                            Det har lämnats in ett förslag om att stryka det med motiveringen att producenterna inte kan anklaga sig själva och även med tanke på...
                            There is a proposal to scrap this idea, one of the considerations being that producers should not have to incriminate themselves, and also...
                            anklaga {vb}
                             to inculpate {vb}
                            anklaga {vb} (även: åtala, tillvita)
                             to indict {vb}
                            anklaga {vb} [jur.] (även: inkalla)
                             to arraign {vb} [jur.]
                            Not editable, can't suggest words or translations.  Note that the last definition has "jur." - that is, that is the definition used in a legal context.

                            Next non-editable dictionary:

                            anklaga anklagar, anklagade, anklagat, anklaga!
                            svenskt VERB
                            ÖVERSÄTTNING
                            Dölj detaljer  SYNONYM
                            klandra, beskylla [VARDAGLIGT]
                            engelska  accuse
                            * incriminate
                             * charge with
                             * indict
                             * arraign (JURIDIK)
                             *  inculpate
                              Beskrivning, synonymer och exempelmeningar saknas.
                            engelska  criminate (JURIDIK)
                             * charge (JURIDIK)

                             *  impeach
                            Hey, let's keep going!  Next:
                            anklaga
                            transitivt verb
                            accuse

                            Förekomst i fraser
                            misstänka (anklaga) för suspect (accuse) of
                            anklagas för grov misshandel be charged with causing grievous bodily harm
                            vittnesmål som talade emot den anklagade …that went against the accused
                            anklagas för stöld eller något ändå värre …or worse

                            Should I keep going?  How many dictionaries do you plan to argue with?  Normally when one talks about "arguing with the dictionary", it's a joke - it means you're so desparate that you'd actually try changing the definition of words to suit your means.  But you actually are arguing with the dictionary here!  I mean, it's just sad.  To formally anklaga someone means to formally charge them, period.  The dictionaries say it.  The process is the same.  The courts found it.  The warrants can't be issued without it.  He IS charged, period.

                            To reiterate, he cannot be åtalad (you keep using English words here to describe the Swedish process - let's stick with the actual Swedish terms) without being in Swedish custody.  So I'll reiterate the question:

                            What more could they possibly do?

                            He's been anklagad.  He cannot be åtalad, which is the next step.  What do they have to do to make you happy?  You dodged the question last time.  I sincerely hope you don't dodge it again.

                            now the prosecutor did some nice tap dancing for that international warrant, and it came under scrutiny in court to the point where even she had to justify and explain that she intended to prosecute even though charges have not been formally filed.
                            It only "came under scrutiny" because Assange appealed.  There was so little concern about its legitimacy that the prosecutor didn't even bother to show up in court to defend it (not even "calling it in" - simply sending a letter), and every court that examined it ruled that it was perfectly legitimately granted.
                            which to be honest is kind of hinky. and it's been pointed out everywhere that the official line is still they need to question him (and then i guess charge him, but boldly saying you are going to charge someone before you even question him is kind of suspect
                            The questioning is a legal requirement for being åtalad.  He's been questioned on the non-felony charges but not on the felony charge, and it is illegal to charge someone with something that they haven't been questioned on.
                            when it did not rule his way sought asylum to protect himself from the possibility of political vengeance
                            Which is an absurd conspiracy theory, but thanks once again for trying to make excuses for a rape fugitive's run from the law.  Rape victims the world over really appreciate you for that.  Because god knows that never happens, fans of the accuser automatically siding with him and spinning the charges as a conspiracy to ruin an innocent man - oh god no, never ever happens!
                            which for some reason Sweden won't give assurances on.
                            Because it's illegal in Sweden to do so.  Read the Extradition for Criminal Offenses act yourself, or Swedish legal scholars' commentary on it (Mark Klamberg has a good one with links to other Swedish legal scholars if you're interested).  The act explicitly prohibits the government from even issuing an advisory opinion on the case until the courts take it up.  And there's not even a request to take up.  The government cannot refuse the request until the courts have ruled (section 20).  Even there the government isn't explicitly granted the right to rule, but it's not banned from ruling after the courts have ruled, and this is traditionally interpreted as the right to block a request at this point.  Not only would it be a violation of the Extradition for Criminal Offenses act, but it'd also violate the Swedish constitution.  There's a very strong separation of powers / judicial non-interference clause.
                            something official that says Sweden has formally criminally charged Assange
                            Once again, SWEDEN DOES NOT USE ENGLISH FOR LEGAL MATTERS.  The two terms are "anklagad" and "åtalad".  He has been anklagad, which in pretty much every way is analogous to "charged" in the US.  He cannot be åtalad remotely.  So unless you're a big fan of circular logic, I recommend you either explain what Sweden could possibly do to move up the prosecutorial chain (there are no steps between "anklagad" and "åtalad"), or drop this argument.
                            especially considering how many governments consider Assange pretty much criminal
                            There are no charges against Assange anywhere in the world for anything related to Wikileaks.  He's been releasing stuff regularly against the US since 2007.  The allegations were a full three months before the embassy cables' release, about halfway between the previous US-targetted release (the Collateral Murder video) and the subsequent (Embassy Cables).  So if you want to argue for timing, it argues precisely the opposite - the charges came during a period of relative inaction.
                            also after the girls had spoken to each other
                            Yes, according to the testimony, the first time the girls spoke to each other (after a rather brief meeting where AA was annoyed at SW being a tag-along while the group was trying to conduct business) was after AA was told that SW was saying Assange raped her.  Oh my god, stop the presses, woman who told people prior about being pinned down and having her legs pried open by Assange to force unprotected sex hears that another girl is saying that Assange f*ed her in her sleep to work around her repeated refusal to consent to unprotected sex  and wants to meet with her - details at 11!

                            And I'm sorry, but this is extremely offensive to me, this "fishing for reasons why the girls must be lying".  We would never tolerate this if anyone else was the accused.  But oh no, because it's Julian Assange, Liberal Fucking Hero, hey, the girls must just be a bunch of lying sluts, so let's all gang up against them online and support the accused's run from the law!  And hey, who give a rat's arse that multiple courts have already reviewed his case, with all evidence on display, his attorney testifying, etc, and found probable cause - up to and including the supreme court.  That just means that all the world's court systems are now run by the CIA!  It certainly couldn't mean that there's actually a lot of evidence that he DID in fact f* a sleeping girl to work around her refusal to consent, oh no!  It can't be because... because... because he's a Liberal F'ing Hero, that's why!  And people we like never rape!  Especially those who have a LONG history of misogyny and creepy/borderline rapey behavior, to the point that even the former Wikileaks #2 accused him of regularly abusing his cat because "males need to learn to be dominant" and the foremost whistleblower in modern UK history (Heather Brooke) who worked with Wikileaks accused him of pinning her up against a wall and trying to make out with her, all while knowing that she's married.  A guy who had cyberstalking accusations against him before he got famous.  A guy who wrote on his blog about how womens' brains can't do math and how he's a god to women.  A guy who brought his friend, misogyny-incarnate author Israel Shamir, into Wikileaks and banned criticism of him.  A guy who wikileaks staffers reported regularly boasted of his conquests of women and how many children he'd fathered.  I could go on and on for hours.  Oh, but no, HE couldn't POSSIBLY have raped someone, so let's all attack the accusers and any court that rules otherwise, why, they're in on the conspiracy!

                            And hey, let's go into this conspiracy theory of yours, shall we?

                          •  ok - you're off the rails at this point... (0+ / 0-)

                            first i spent on small paragraph on the dictionary being a wiki. you're spending a whole lot more cuz i guess that's the bulk of your "proof"...

                            second, all we have is you saying that anklaga and atalad mean what they do in legal terms - meaning formally charged and indicted. and that last one says anklaga means all of the above, including indicted, so i'd stay away from the dictionary as some form of proof. you have no link to back up that the terms mean in a legal sense in Sweden. and i never said Sweden uses English in court proceedings - that's a big red herring.

                            thirdly, you also *still* have not provided a link backing your claim that he has been formally criminally charged.

                            i read for hours yesterday, from official Swedish gov't sites to academic sites to journalistic sites, and i cannot find anything that backs your claim. not a one. the closest you can come is that the prosecutor swore she is going to prosecute him, which she had to do since formal charges have not been filed. and pretty much the basis is that she was saying that she has been unable to question him, which if you've followed the case is not entirely on Assange -he's offered on a couple occasions.

                            fourth, there may be no specific charges against Assange regarding wikileaks, but there is an open grand jury into wikileaks, and it wouldn't take much to start considering Assange as a target. they can't right now, cuz if they did, they show their hand and vindicate Assange's fears. it's not a big leap to say there's a chance that Assange could be added at any time to that grand jury proceeding.

                            fifth, wikileaks released the collateral video in April 2010, the Afghan War documents in July 2010, and was set to release the Iraq War documents in October 2010. twas quite convenient timing you have to admit, especially given the dubious nature of the Iraq War in the first place.

                            i never said the girls were outright lying. in fact, i've used the term "victims" for them a few times in this thread (i should have actually said "alleged victims" but i digress). given the start, then stop, then start again, along with all of the wikileaks controversy in the middle of it, especially with our own wikileak grand jury impaneled. that there is enough cause to be a bit on the skeptical side. this is not some easy cut and dried rape case with actual evidence. it is a he said/she said case with a whole lot going on around it that may or may not be related - neither of us has proof of whether that is true or not.

                            and no where am i making the argument that the girls are lying. so you can get off your "fishing for reasons the girls are lying" kick. as for the "long" history just did some googling on that and it seems as though that is he said she said stuff too - and those charges (not formal charges of course, lol) are fairly recent too - after the whole Sweden case began. so yeah, i can be a bit skeptical, this isn't something black and white - there are a lot of grays here. and i never, not once, said he was not capable of rape. NOT ONCE.

                            it is however, very clear in your last paragraph that you really really detest Julian Assange for whatever reason. the unbridled vitriol in your last paragraph leads me to believe that you are incapable of being anything close to objective when discussion him which means our conversation is over. i had thought you were approaching this argument as an honest arbiter, but apparently, you are yet just another who has already tried and convicted the guy based solely on someone's say so.

                            finally, what conspiracy theory of mine are you talking about? are you drunk or just blinded by anger? i am not even in that thread that you linked to so i'm not sure where you're calling anything my conspiracy theory. my name is poligirl - you can see that right?

                            anyway, you're off the rails and clearly heavily biased. you make claims without linking, you're off on a dictionary tangent instead of providing sourcing for legal system in Sweden, and you're accusing me of several things i've not done. i thought i was dealing with a rational actor here, but now i see you weren't one to begin with.

                            one more thing: Larry Summers said some really offensive things about women too, yet Obama made him a trusted advisor. where was your outrage then? just sayin'...

                            The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                            by poligirl on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:12:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)
                            first i spent on small paragraph on the dictionary being a wiki.you're spending a whole lot more cuz i guess that's the bulk of your "proof"...
                            So two sentences and one blockquote is the "bulk of my proof"?  Color me convinced!
                            second, all we have is you saying that anklaga and atalad mean what they do in legal terms
                            Yeah, all we have is what I say.  And what every Swedish dictionary I can find says and the fact that the process is the same as for charging, as ruled by multiple courts in the UK -  but apart from that, nothing but what I say!
                            and that last one says anklaga means all of the above, including indicted, so i'd stay away from the dictionary as some form of proof.
                            Oh my god, words can have more than one meaning!  Like, say, the word "charge"?
                            charge
                            tʃɑrdʒ Show Spelled [chahrj] Show IPA verb, charged, charg·ing, noun
                            verb (used with object)
                            1.
                            to impose or ask as a price or fee: That store charges $25 for leather gloves.
                            2.
                            to impose on or ask of (someone) a price or fee: He didn't charge me for it.
                            3.
                            to defer payment for (a purchase) until a bill is rendered by the creditor: The store let me charge the coat.
                            4.
                            to hold liable for payment; enter a debit against.
                            5.
                            to attack by rushing violently against: The cavalry charged the enemy.
                            6.
                            to accuse formally or explicitly (usually followed by with  ): They charged him with theft.
                            7.
                            to impute; ascribe the responsibility for: He charged the accident to his own carelessness.
                            8.
                            to instruct authoritatively, as a judge does a jury.
                            9.
                            to lay a command or injunction upon: He charged his secretary with the management of his correspondence.
                            10.
                            to fill or furnish (a thing) with the quantity, as of powder or fuel, that it is fitted to receive: to charge a musket.
                            11.
                            to supply with a quantity of electric charge or electrical energy: to charge a storage battery.
                            12.
                            to change the net amount of positive or negative electric charge of (a particle, body, or system).
                            13.
                            to suffuse, as with emotion: The air was charged with excitement.
                            14.
                            to fill (air, water, etc.) with other matter in a state of diffusion or solution: The air was charged with pollen.
                            15.
                            Metallurgy . to load (materials) into a furnace, converter, etc.
                            16.
                            to load or burden (the mind, heart, etc.): His mind was charged with weighty matters.
                            17.
                            to put a load or burden on or in.
                            18.
                            to record the loan of, as books or other materials from a library (often followed by out  ): The librarian will charge those books at the front desk.
                            19.
                            to borrow, as books or other materials from a library (often followed by out  ): How many magazines may I charge at one time?
                            20.
                            Heraldry. to place charges on (an escutcheon).
                            21.
                            to make an onset; rush, as to an attack.
                            22.
                            to place the price of a thing to one's debit.
                            23.
                            to require payment: to charge for a service.
                            24.
                            to make a debit, as in an account.
                            25.
                            (of dogs) to lie down at command.
                            Clearly because the word "charge" can mean multiple things, that means that if someone files formal charges, the person charged isn't really charged.   Why, they could simply be "formally filled with electricity" or "formally loaded into a furnace". It's all so clear now!
                            and i cannot find anything that backs your claim.
                            That's not my problem that you don't even know how to use a dictionary or read a court ruling.
                            and pretty much the basis is that she was saying that she has been unable to question him, which if you've followed the case is not entirely on Assange -he's offered on a couple occasions.
                            "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

                            He cannot be  åtalad except within Swedish custody, and that is the objective of the questioning.

                            i never said the girls were outright lying.
                            No, clearly when you wrote "or me - especially considering how many governments consider Assange pretty much criminal and considering that there are open grand juries in this country dealing with Wikileaks and considering that these allegations showed up both a month after a really controversial Wikileaks release ", you weren't at all implying that they were part of a CIA plot to falsely frame him for rape.  Clearly.
                            finally, what conspiracy theory of mine are you talking about?
                            The above one, obviously.  And when I say "of yours", I don't mean that you're the one who invented it, you're just pushing it.
                            wikileaks released the collateral video in April 2010, the Afghan War documents in July 2010, and was set to release the Iraq War documents in October 2010.
                            Let's do a full timeline of leaks about Wikileaks for the 2009-2010 period, shall we?

                            Feb 2009: Congressional Research Reports
                            Mar 2009 (+1 month): Contributors to the Coleman Campaign
                            May 2009 (+2 months): Bilderberg reports
                            Nov 2009 (+5 months): 9/11 paper messages
                            Mar 2010 (+4 months): US counterintelligence report on Wikileaks
                            Apr 2010 (+1 month): Baghdad airstrike video
                            July 2010 (+3 months): Afghan War diary
                            Oct 2010 (+3 months): Iraq War logs
                            Nov 2010 (+1 month): Diplomatic cables release

                            In what manner was that timing at all remotely suspicious?  Wikileaks has regularly been releasing stuff about the US.  If you find that timing suspicious, you'd find any timepoint suspicious.

                            the unbridled vitriol in your last paragraph
                            I'm sorry if you find facts to be "unbridled vitriol".  But you might want to consider living in the world of reality where facts matter.

                            Clearly a person having a long and well documented history of misogyny and aggressive sexual behavior has no bearing on a discussion of whether it's plausible that they committed rape.

                            one more thing: Larry Summers said some really offensive things about women too,
                            Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed where Larry Summers was running from rape charges and his fans were adimant that he never could have done it.  

                            (and FYI, I wasn't active at DK during the period of his appointment - but feel free to add whatever red herrings make you happy)

                          •  You can't even see your own shit. (0+ / 0-)
                            The act explicitly prohibits the government from even issuing an advisory opinion on the case until the courts take it up.  And there's not even a request to take up.
                            The law does not bar the Government from issuing assurances when there is no case.

                            Do you even see how completely you just destroyed your own argument?

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

                            by JesseCW on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 01:42:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  ummm because if they were sincere about this (5+ / 0-)

          being simply about getting justice for the victims, truly about justice, it shouldn't make a good bit of difference where he gets questioned, just that he gets questioned.

          justice demands he be questioned, the where shouldn't matter.

          the where only matters if there are other ulterior motives...

          i also refer you to my sig line for additional insight...

          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

          by poligirl on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 03:56:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  that's pure bullshit (0+ / 0-)

            if this was any one else besides saint Assange this place would be full of diaries screaming for him to turn himself in for questioning

            Why the hell should this man be held above the law?

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 04:58:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You realize you didn't even attempt a rebuttal, (5+ / 0-)

              right?

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

              by JesseCW on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:20:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  oh there's a rebutal there (0+ / 0-)

                if it's too complicated for you just let me know

                In the time that I have been given,
                I am what I am

                by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:00:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ummm, no there isn't. i suggest you go back (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW

                  to debate class, son.

                  The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                  by poligirl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:08:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  roftl (0+ / 0-)

                    of course because my opponent says there isn't there must be so

                    I think it is you that needs to go back to debate school

                    In the time that I have been given,
                    I am what I am

                    by duhban on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:15:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ok. which part of this comment of yours: (0+ / 0-)
                      that's pure bullshit (0+ / 0-)
                      if this was any one else besides saint Assange this place would be full of diaries screaming for him to turn himself in for questioning

                      Why the hell should this man be held above the law?

                      In the time that I have been given,
                      I am what I am

                      by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 06:58:05 PM CDT

                      is rebutting this:
                      ummm because if they were sincere about this (5+ / 0-)
                      being simply about getting justice for the victims, truly about justice, it shouldn't make a good bit of difference where he gets questioned, just that he gets questioned.

                      justice demands he be questioned, the where shouldn't matter.

                      the where only matters if there are other ulterior motives...

                      i also refer you to my sig line for additional insight...

                      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                      by poligirl on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 05:56:05 PM CDT

                      please be specific, and a tip: "that's pure bullshit" is not a rebuttal.

                      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                      by poligirl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 11:27:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm sorry I'm not interested in teaching you (0+ / 0-)

                        or in dumbing down my words till you get the point.

                        You lost any expectation of that when you decided to act as you did.

                        Here though is a tip for you, a comment is much much more then what is put in the subject

                        In the time that I have been given,
                        I am what I am

                        by duhban on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 03:49:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ummm, i included your entire comment in (0+ / 0-)

                          the thread above. so all that much more is already there. and none of it is a rebuttal.

                          and the reason you are not interested is that you can't point out the rebuttal cuz there isn't one, and clearly that was noticed by more than just me.

                          but carry on...

                          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                          by poligirl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 04:50:57 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  he did turn himself in on the warrant... (0+ / 0-)

              gawd, i can't argue people who can't see past their hatred of Assange to look at the law. it's like arguing with climate deniers and creationists... geez...

              The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

              by poligirl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:07:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no he didn't (0+ / 0-)

                he remains in defiance in the Equadoran embarssay and a fugitive unless you know something different?

                In the time that I have been given,
                I am what I am

                by duhban on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:16:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ummm, he turned himself in a couple years (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gooderservice, Anorish

                  ago... so yeah, i do know different. google is your friend.

                  The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                  by poligirl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 11:24:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  link it then (0+ / 0-)

                    because according to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

                    he's still in the embassy which was less then 8 months ago so clearly it's not been a 'couple of years'

                    google is your friend, you should use it so you don't continue to embarrass yourself

                    In the time that I have been given,
                    I am what I am

                    by duhban on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 03:51:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well, here's... (3+ / 0-)

                      the BBC chronology with links to the specific news articles reporting the stuff in the timeline...

                      or if you prefer, how about the chronology from the Swedish Prosecution Authority (you know, those folks who want Assange in the first place), cuz that one has it too.

                      not sure what you were doing or where you were, but he actually spent a week in prison in Britain before he was granted bail.

                      like i said, if your memory fails, google is your friend...

                      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                      by poligirl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 04:46:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  and your own link shows what I found (0+ / 0-)

                        so again you were wrong

                        but hey keep up the bluster it's amusing though it's shredding your crediblity with me

                        In the time that I have been given,
                        I am what I am

                        by duhban on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 05:52:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  uhhhhh... (0+ / 0-)

                          uhhh, from the first link:

                          16 December 2010

                          Mr Assange is granted bail by Mr Justice Ouseley at the High Court and is freed after his supporters pay £240,000 in cash and sureties.

                          14 December 2010

                          Judges award bail to Mr Assange, but prosecutors immediately announce that they will appeal, and he is sent back to jail until a higher court can address the issue.

                          8 December 2010

                          The Wikileaks founder gives himself up to London police and is taken to an extradition hearing at a Westminster court. He is remanded in custody pending another hearing on 14 December.

                          30 November 2010

                          Interpol issues a "red notice" for Mr Assange, asking people to contact police if they have any information about his whereabouts.

                          20 November 2010

                          Swedish police issue an international arrest warrant for Mr Assange via Interpol.

                          (emphasis mine)

                          it's in the other timeline too.

                          and why on earth would i give a rat's ass about my credibility with you? as if you were somebody to impress. my only wonderings about you are which zombie you might be... and this from a guy who is arguing with a straight face that Assange was not detained in the case...  credibility? lolololol.... (rolls eyes)

                          i am however following the whole wikileaks case, which does interest me. also, i am interested in truth and facts, so i tend to argue when i don't think they are being represented accurately. however, i do value worthy opponents, which you have now proven not to be. so i will not waste any more time with you. the full convo is proof of that and is here for anyone to see if they so wish...

                          have a good evening!

                          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                          by poligirl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 06:47:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  Because it's their duty to investigate accusations (4+ / 0-)

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

          by JesseCW on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:19:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  for any one else (0+ / 0-)

            the idea that a deal should be made even before a trial is launched would be laughed at here. But oh no for saint Assange the excuses and attacks are rolled out

            Assange is fleeing a criminal investiagion that's wrong, period end of discussion and normally wouldn't be tolerated here and it shouldn't be. If he did as he is accused he committed rape and the fact that he didn't hold the women down or beat them up doesn't change  that

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:03:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Questioning, charges (0+ / 0-)

        First, off, he has been charged (anklagad).  He has not been indicted (åtalad), which is not possible outside of Sweden (not going to go into the details again)

        Secondly, concerning questioning, here's the sworn statement of the prosecutor (again):

        Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
        •  Of course, that is what they have to say to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poligirl

          extradite him, right?   You cannot ask for an extradition just to question someone.

          I'm not arguing with your facts or your quotes.  I'm just saying any other statement below that level would not justify an extradition.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:36:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The "extradition" conspiracy theory is the height (0+ / 0-)

            of absurdity.  Do I really need to go into it again for the fifth time this thread?

            •  What is the conspiracy? Did I say to the USA? (0+ / 0-)

              Isn't he in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid extradition from Britain to Sweden?

              What's the conspiracy there?  

              Maybe you should get a grip on yourself.

              "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

              by YucatanMan on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:05:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  anklagad means 'accused' not charged. nt (0+ / 0-)

          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

          by poligirl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:19:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The process for being anklagad (0+ / 0-)

            is equivalent to the process of being charged in the US and UK, and the UK courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) found that he has been charged, sufficient to meet the standards of the EAW.  So the proper translation is charged.

            •  the EAW is for questioning... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Anorish

              not for trial.

              and no where on any swedish sites can i find anything that states that anklagad för brott means charged. it means accused. there has been a formal accusation made. however, if what i'm reading is correct, there have been no criminal charges filed at all.

              and besides - if Sweden is so concerned about justice for the victims, how come they didn't want to question Assange  in Britain? he offered it, a couple of times iirc. it seems to me that justice would not be dependent on where the questioning happened, just that it happened, no?

              going further, Assange turned himself in to British authorities on that warrant - a warrant for extradition for questioning on the crime he's been accused of. that would be akin to an act of good faith. and Sweden has had opportunities to interrogate him.

              i tell you what - if they are so sure that Assange is good for the crimes - why don't they question him in Britain and then file criminal charges in Sweden. then they can file a warrant based on something other than just questioning and if Assange runs, his image suffers PR wise. that would seem like it would make Sweden look like it was operating on the same good faith that Assange is acting with. and why don't they just come out and say they won't extradite him to the US? if that's the truth, why not say it?

              this case is not even close to the black and white that some folks around these parts - extreme party loyalists - would like it to be. trying to paint it as that doesn't make the painter look good - it makes them look like a rubber stamp yes man. just sayin'...

               

              The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

              by poligirl on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:20:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not going to respond twice to the first part. (0+ / 0-)

                Here's what I wrote last time.

                and besides - if Sweden is so concerned about justice for the victims, how come they didn't want to question Assange  in Britain?
                Once again, the sworn statement of the prosecutor:
                Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
                Once indicted (åtalad), the trial must commence within two weeks, so it's pointless to suggest remote questioning.
                going further, Assange turned himself in to British authorities on that warrant
                Yes, he has a habit of turning himself in until he's running out of legal options, then fleeing when things go against him.  He did that in Sweden and he did it in the UK too.
                why don't they question him in Britain and then file criminal charges in Sweden
                Praytell, are they supposed to start the trial without him?
                •  that's legal gymnastics: (0+ / 0-)
                  Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
                  (emphasis mine)

                  this is basically the tap dance justification they had to do in order to get  the international warrant. she pretty much spells that out in the highlighted sentence...

                  The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                  by poligirl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 11:36:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you're saying she's lying? (0+ / 0-)

                    So let me get this straight.  Multiple courts, up to and including the Supreme Court have formally found probable cause that he committed the crime.  The prosecutor has issued a sworn statement that she wants to charge him for the crime that he has been formally found against for committing.  

                    But somehow that makes no sense and she must clearly be lying?  Am I understanding you right here?

                    •  i'm saying that from the Swedish laws that i (0+ / 0-)

                      have read today as well as the EAW requirements, that yes, like any good lawyer, she can do a good tap dance and is skirting real close to the line here. all good lawyers can do this. but that even she is acknowledging in the statement you posted that she feels she needs to justify cuz on its own, it's questionable. i wouldn't say that she's lying, but she is parsing, again, like any good lawyer can do.

                      my main argument is that formal charges have not been filed against Assange in Sweden. i just answered you at length on that somewhere in one of our convos here...

                      also - i do not believe that the Court ruled on the actual merits, but only on whether enough existed to issue a warrant.

                      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                      by poligirl on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 04:56:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

  •  It's Too Bad For the Women Involved (12+ / 0-)

    ...that Assange isn't a high school football player or something... then the headline on a rec list diary here would say "Victim" instead of "Accuser."

    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 Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:49:19 AM PDT

    •  But, but, (8+ / 0-)

      It's clear that this whole thing is a plot by the U.S. government/CIA/FEMAto undermine Assange's good name. Their initial plan to have him accused of sexual assault by two women(really? If there's anything more common than one woman lying, it's two women lying). Once that was in place, he would be forced to return to Sweden where government would force him to be turned over to us for torture and imprisonment. Possible leverage for turning him over to us includes the release of risque photos of King Gustav with diaper wearing little people.
      Sweden would be forced to release him to us where Assange would be forced through a 'sham' trial and sentenced to death.

      Thankfully, Assange, in full hero mode, escaped dramatically to the Ecuadorian Embassy where he drinks tea and patiently outlines the blueprint for a a true world of fweedom.

      ............or something like that. Because the above is about as plausible as everything else I've read about this.

      Look, I tried to be reasonable...

      by campionrules on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:59:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sigh ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poligirl, zinger99, UnaSpenser

        Is it entirely outside the realm of possibility that both these things are true:  

        1) Assange is a scumbag who lied to women about using a condom and pressured women into having sex without a condom, and

        2) The US government is using this situation to attack Wikileaks and to get their hands on Assange?

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

        by jrooth on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:09:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sigh (7+ / 0-)

          but only #2 can be proven. #1 charge was dismissed, once before.

          "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

          by azureblue on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:21:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No It Isn't (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zinger99, duhban, sviscusi, campionrules

          Nor is it entirely outside the realm of possiblity that any OTHER rape allegation "might" not be true, but try suggesting that about anyone other than Assange and see how far you get around here.  That's kind of my whole point.

          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 Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:58:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  #2 may be true but it's also irrelevant. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sebastianguy99, duhban
          •  Why irrelevant? (5+ / 0-)

            Certainly not irrelevant to Assange.  The fact is we (the United States) do engage in extraordinary renditions, "enhanced interrogation techniques", and indefinite imprisonment without charge.  Only a fool would not fear falling in our hands after having offended us to the extent he has.

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

            by jrooth on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:10:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's irrelevant to rape accusations. All this (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sebastianguy99, sviscusi, duhban

              hypothetical stuff that maybe he will be extradited from Sweden is nothing more than smokescreen.

              •  Irrelevant to rape accusations, yes. (5+ / 0-)

                But absolutely not irrelevant to the issue of him surrendering to Swedish authorities.

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

                by jrooth on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:29:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmm, whose opinion about Sweden should we (0+ / 0-)

                  trust.  How about the opinion of one Julian Assange, who thought so much of Sweden's whistleblower protections and how hard it is to extradite from Sweden that he called it his "shield" and was moving Wikileaks' base of operations there?  A country that has harbored literally hundreds of US defectors at all levels, where it is illegal to extradite for military, intelligence, or political crimes?  The #1 country in the world according to the World Justice Project in ensuring fundamental rights, whose lowest ranking is for "effective criminal justice" (aka, they let people off the hook too easily)?

        •  But (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duhban
          1) Assange is a scumbag who lied to women about using a condom and pressured women into having sex without a condom, and

          2) The US government is using this situation to attack Wikileaks and to get their hands on Assange?

          Item #1 is the stuff of everyday law enforcement. Sexual crimes are committed every day. And law enforcement acts to arrest perpetrators every day.

          Item #2 OTOH is that sort of thing that Kos himself says requires exceptional evidence in support: The conspiracy theory.

          To which I will add this:

          Even if the US government is able to work a loophole to extradite a convicted sex criminal convicted in Sweden, that does not mean the alleged perpetrator should be allowed to go scott-free. Mr Assasage should clear his name in a court of law.

          THEN I will be able to support him.

          •  I have never said he should go scott-free. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gooderservice

            What we have here is a conflict of two legitimate interests.  Sweden's interest in prosecuting him for the crimes he allegedly committed there, and his in being protected from the kind of retribution the US has (and continues to) mete out to persons we name enemies.

            I sincerely hope to see this conflict resolved.  To me, it appears the only way that can happen is if Swedish authorities give him the assurances he has asked for with regard to that second legitimate interests.  At that point, Ecuador would no longer have any reason to shield him and he would no longer have any excuse not to surrender to Swedish authorities.  If he continued to resist at that point, then all the accusations his critics here inveigh him with will be valid.  But not until then.

            It has been said by some of his opponents that his fear is baseless because it is against Swedish law to send him to another country in these circumstances.  My question in reply to that is:  if that is so, what possible harm could there be in Sweden giving him that assurance?  It's very hard for me to see what purpose there is in Sweden taking such a hard line an something they are supposedly obliged to do anyway, if doing so would strip Assange of the excuse he currently has for availing himself of asylum.

            “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:09:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: (0+ / 0-)
               if that is so, what possible harm could there be in Sweden giving him that assurance?
              How about the fact that it would be illegal to do so?

              I can dig up the statute for you if necessary.  Sweden is nice in making publicly available official English translations of their laws, and I've read the extradition law before.  I can also point you to a number of Swedish legal scholars making the exact same point.

              •  Yeah, I'd like a statutory cite (0+ / 0-)

                for the claim that the sovereign government of Sweden can't make a deal regarding where they will send him after they are done with him.  Hell - if nothing else parliament could pass a special bill to that effect.

                And the second claim in your linked comment:

                And FYI, it is illegal in Sweden to extradite for intelligence or military crimes.  It's never happened.
                is exactly the claim I was referring to above.  If that's true, all they need to do to satisfy his demand is to put in writing in his specific case the very thing you claim is the law in Sweden.  What could possibly be the harm in doing that?

                “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:23:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  First, remember the issue at hand. (0+ / 0-)

                  This isn't about "when they're done with him", but what is possible, period, any time, concerning what the government can do concerning extradition requests.

                  Extradition For Criminal Offenses.  "Procedure" begins with section 14 and proceeds in order.  The order cannot be randomly reshuffled to suit ones desires.  A summary:

                  Section 14: The request is made to the Ministry of Justice for extradition.

                  Section 15: Key section, so I'll include it in whole: "Before the government make a decision on the request, the Prosecutor-General shall deliver a statement of opinion on the matter. In addition, if the person referred to in the request has not consented to be extradited, the case shall be tried by the Supreme Court. The request shall, however, be rejected immediately if there is a manifest reason why it should not be granted."  (manifest = self-evident - aka, form filled out wrong, body requesting it isn't a government with standing, things like that - something one physically cannot judge about a nonextant request)

                  Section 16: Prosecutor-general conducts a formal investigation of the case based on the information in the request as basis for the statement of opinion, including requesting more information as needed from the state requesting extradition.  Without a request, all of this is impossible so the government can't even merely issue a formal opinion on the case, let alone a binding ruling.

                  Section 17: The case goes to the Supreme Court.

                  Section 18: The Supreme Court rules.

                  Section 19: Repealed.

                  Section 20: If the Supreme Court says "no", the extradition cannot proceed (excepting certain specific reasons for blocking extradition and only if said reasons are remedied first).  As nothing in this paragraph bans the government from blocking an extradition on its own (there is nothing that says the government "shall" extradite the individual otherwise, no court order to do so), the government can additionally block extraditions at this point as well.

                  Don't take my word for it all, or even your own eyes.  Here's Swedish legal scholar Mark Klamberg discussing the law.  He cites several other Swedish legal scholars (who in turn cite others), all to the same effect.  This is not law in dispute.  There is a very specific order and a well-understood procedure here.  It'd even be an explicit constitutional violation to try to reshuffle it as well and usurp the power of the Judiciary - Sweden has a strong constitutional separation of powers doctrine.

                  •  That statute is about (0+ / 0-)

                    the process for extraditing a non-Swedish-national present in Sweden.  It says nothing about making a deal regarding the government making a deal in advance of gaining custody of such a person.

                    As for the discussion by Mark Klamberg, I don't dispute his reasoning that the Swedish Supreme Court can't make an advisory opinion.  But that is not what is being asked of the Swedish government.  He goes on to argue that the government has no discretion with regard to their extradition treaty with the US, but the passage he quotes:

                    10.2 Obligation to extradite
                    10.2.1 Present law and assumptions
                    The starting point in section 1 of the Extradiction Act is that extradition pursuant to the law may be granted. With the word "may" follows that, as mentioned earlier, a free and discretionary power for the Government. This means that even if the legal requirements are met the Government may under the current legal scheme deny extradition. The Government may however by the accession to treaties and agreements binding under international law in an actual case be under an obligation to extradite. The possibilities of the State to deny extradiction with reference to State Sovereignty or ordre public may place the State interest before extradition and give some discretion and thus give the Government freedom.

                    (emphasis mine)

                    does not support that contention.  Rather (in the sentence I bolded) it explicitly reserves the power to over-ride the extradition treaty if it is in the state interest.

                    “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:53:32 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  First off... (0+ / 0-)

                      you're arguing against Swedish legal scholars about what Swedish law says.  Might want to think about that one for a minute.

                      Secondly, you're absolutely right - it's about "extraditing a non-Swedish-national present in Sweden."  Which is what extradition is.  So what are you asking - them to promise, "if Assange comes back to Sweden, we won't extradite him, no matter what request we get"?  Then you're asking them to say, "If Assange comes to Sweden, then we'll violate our law".  It makes not a whit of difference.  It's a pledge to break the law.

                      but the passage he quotes:
                      ... does absolutely nothing to change the order laid out in the extradition act.  The government does get a right to refuse.  In section 20.  After everything else.  The law is explicit that the courts get the first rule and the government can't issue an opinion beforehand.

                      And besides all that, no government opinion means that you can just ignore the law.  Seriously, aren't we supposed to be against governments explicitly violating laws and constitutions?  And now you're wanting Sweden to do it?

                      •  First off ... (0+ / 0-)

                        I am fairly fluent in Swedish and can (and have) read the original text.  I am not a lawyer but that does not preclude my ability to read and comprehend.

                        Second, you are engaging in the fallacy of argument by authority.  Legal scholars surely are due proper consideration of their opinions, but they are hardly God and therefore not infallible.

                        Third, see my post below quoting Stefan Lindskog (not only a Swedish legal scholar but a practicing Swedish Supreme Court judge) agreeing with my claim.

                        “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:04:04 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Good for you. (0+ / 0-)

                          That doesn't make you a Swedish legal scholar.  I can muddle my way through Swedish (though not as well as Norwegian or Danish); I speak Icelandic.

                          And I'm sorry, but the people whose opinions matter on the subject of Swedish law are Swedish legal scholars.  Not "jrooth at Daily Kos".

                          •  Again ... (0+ / 0-)

                            argument by authority

                            “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:25:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Law *is* authority. (0+ / 0-)

                            Argument by law is argument by authority.  Did you forget what you were debating here?

                            And again, I'm sorry, but the ordering is explicit in the law, the wording is additionally explicit with qualifiers like "before", and legal scholars are in agreement.  It is illegal to do what you want them to do.

                          •  But you are arguing by "Swedish legal scholars" (0+ / 0-)

                            not "by law." :

                            And I'm sorry, but the people whose opinions matter on the subject of Swedish law are Swedish legal scholars.  Not "jrooth at Daily Kos".

                            “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:25:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  BTW, here is Stefan Lindskog (0+ / 0-)

                    (the Supreme Court judge who will be speaking Wednesday in Australia) on this issue:

                    PROCEDURES
                    If a person whose extradition is requested opposes extradition, it falls to the Supreme Court to examine whether extradition can be legally granted under the conditions laid down by law. The Supreme Court then delivers its opinion to the government for use in its examination of the case.

                    If the Supreme Court holds that there is any legal impediment to extradition, the government is not allowed to approve the request. The government can, however, refuse extradition even if the Supreme Court has not declared against it.

                    The reason for involving the Supreme Court is basically a variation of the blame game. It is convenient for the government to declare that the request for extradition must be denied because the Supreme Court has ordered so.
                    (emphasis mine)

                    So according to a Swedish Supreme Court judge, the Swedish government's hands are not tied as you claim they are.  After all, if the government can refuse extradition even after the courts have ruled in favor of extradition, surely they can declare in advance that they will do so.

                    “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:48:23 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, it can. (0+ / 0-)

                      And it says it can.  In Section 20.  What is so difficult about this for you to understand?  

                      Lindskog says it right there: The court rules, delivers its opinion, can block it, and if they don't, the government can refuse.  Words come In order, that's how language works.  Why do you keep trying to reorder laws and peoples explicit words?  You can't do that.  

                      And just in case people like you don't understand that, the law was so kind as to explicitly write things like "Before the Government makes a decision".

                      •  Your argument is absurd. (0+ / 0-)

                        The government is completely free to ignore any court ruling with regards to extradition, but it cannot say in advance that it intends to ignore any ruling?  Where does it say that in section 20?

                        “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:21:58 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Correction (0+ / 0-)

                          any court ruling that extradition is permissible.

                          “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:27:02 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  That's what the law says. (0+ / 0-)

                          Thats what legal scholars say.  That's what everything says.  Because the courts get first go at it.

                          What sort of anarchy do you want to live in where you can just ignore laws and usurp the courts?

                          As for section 20, Klamberg talked about that.  Because it only says that the request may not be granted if the Supreme Court finds against the request, but never says it has to be granted, the government can choose whether to grant it or not.  But as section 15 explicitly and unambiguously states, "Before the government makes a decision on the request... the case shall be tried by the Supreme Court."  

                          How are you possibly not understanding that sentence?

                          •  The "anarchy I want" (0+ / 0-)

                            is the exact same sovereign power that exists in the US, Sweden, and pretty much every country.  Extradition is not a judicial process in most countries - it is a political one.

                            Tell me, how is it any more "anarchy" for a government to say in advance: "in order to obtain custody of this individual we agree not to extradite him to any third country" than it is for that government to go through the whole judicial procedure and then say "notwithstanding what the courts say, we choose not to extradite this person to any third country?"

                            And I have no difficulty at all understanding the whole process of dealing with a request for extradition laid out in the statute you quoted.  What you seem to be failing to understand is that that process does not exist here.  Assange is not in Swedish custody.  There is no request for extradition directed to the Swedish government.  Thus the whole sequence laid out in that statute is irrelevant to what can be done right now - entirely outside that process.

                            Yes, once he is in Swedish custody and an extradition request has been submitted, at that point "the courts get first go at it"  (in the sense that they can forbid extradition - but not compel it.)  But that whole process is not prevented by a prior agreement to not extradite.  Yes, it would make it rather an academic exercise (but then as Judge Lindskog pointed out, it is anyway ("The reason for involving the Supreme Court is basically a variation of the blame game. It is convenient for the government to declare that the request for extradition must be denied because the Supreme Court has ordered so.")

                            “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:17:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Extradition *is* a judicial process (0+ / 0-)

                            And it is governed by laws.  Namely the Extradition For Criminal Offenses act.  Which I've been going over and over again here, and Swedish legal scholars have already weighed in on.  And the only difference that Assange not being in Swedish custody now makes is that you're wanting them to promise that when he is in Swedish custody, then they'll break their laws.  How on Earth is that better?

                            This is just getting plain silly.  :Þ  I'm stopping now.

                          •  It's not breaking the law. (0+ / 0-)

                            A blanket declaration that the government will not extradite to any third country is not (technically) the same thing as making a decision on a specific request (the part of the process you focus on to claim this would be illegal.)

                            The process could play out exactly according to that statute notwithstanding the existence of a prior binding agreement not to extradite to any third country.  At the end of that process, the government would then "decide" to abide by their prior agreement regardless of whether the court deems extradition permissible.

                            And no, it's not a judicial process if the court can only deny, not compel, extradition.  It's a political process with a judicial process embedded within.

                            And I'm not saying anything is "better" I'm saying it's exactly the same - in both instances a decision to extradite is a political one, not a judicial one.  By the way, you did not answer my related question:

                            Tell me, how is it any more "anarchy" for a government to say in advance: "in order to obtain custody of this individual we agree not to extradite him to any third country" than it is for that government to go through the whole judicial procedure and then say "notwithstanding what the courts say, we choose not to extradite this person to any third country?"

                            “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 Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 05:27:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, if I'm understanding you right... (0+ / 0-)

                            If Sweden said something like, "We cannot comment on a specific case, but we reassert the fact that it is illegal under our laws to extradite for intelligence crimes or where there's a risk of the death penalty or abuse", would that be enough for you to say, "Assange should get out of the embassy and go to Sweden"?

                          •  As you can see by the text (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Anorish

                            of my question above (which I note you continue to decline to answer) I am envisioning a direct guarantee to him that he will not be extradited to any third country ("in order to obtain custody of this individual we agree not to extradite him to any third country").  That is what Assange and Ecuador are asking for.  

                            I cannot say whether your lesser alternative would be enough to satisfy his request.

                            “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 Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 09:33:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What you are envisioning (0+ / 0-)

                            ....is to promise an explicit violation of the extradiction act, and will NEVER happen.  Because Sweden is a country of laws.

                            I didn't answer because I didn't plan to respond at all.  But if you want: how is this not a no-brainer for you?  What you're advocating is anarchy because it's advocating the ignoring of laws.  Which is by definition, anarchy.  It is not the ignoring of laws for the government to rule in the phase of section 20 because the law doesn' tell the government that it has to rule in a particlar way then.  But it DOES ban them from ruling beforehand.  Explicitly.

                          •  I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Anorish

                            I laid out how this could be done in full compliance with the statute in a comment above.

                            He is not in Swedish custody (and presumably never will be absent an agreement not to extradite him.)  Therefore the statute dictating how the government is to deal with a request for extradition of a person in Swedish custody is irrelevant to the current situation.  No laws need be ignored.

                            “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 Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 11:00:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right. You just simply want them (0+ / 0-)

                            to promise to break their laws when he arrives.

                            Sorry, not going to happen.  And nor should it ever.

                          •  Again ... (0+ / 0-)

                            One cannot be breaking a law if the prerequisite conditions for that law are not in effect at the time.  The prerequisites to that whole sequence of actions laid out in that statute are that the person in question is in Swedish custody and there has been a request for extradition of that person.  Neither of these things is true today, therefore nothing prevents any agreement being made today.

                            And the existence of such a prior binding agreement does not prevent the government from following that statute perfectly once he is in custody and a request for extradition has been made.  The agreement is at that point pre-existing.  They would not be making it once the judicial process is under way and thus they would not be violating the law.

                            There's nothing complicated about this at all.  One need only understand the concept of prerequisite conditions, as set out in the very statute you quoted.  If a prohibition is contingent upon prerequisite conditions then it has no force absent those prerequisite conditions.

                            “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 Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 04:05:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  It's DKos. Assange is a saint. He never did (4+ / 0-)

      anything wrong in his life. Anyone who says otherwise is a CIA plant.

      •  It's so much easier ... (7+ / 0-)

        to just paint caricatures than to actually address the things real people say, isn't 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 Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:14:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a summary of what I've heard on this subject (5+ / 0-)

          from most posters here. And what issues? No new issues in this diary. Assange was accused of rape and ran away to the embassy. That's all there is to it.

          •  Just an FYI for you: (5+ / 0-)

            You're embarrassing yourself.

            Assange was accused of rape and ran away to the embassy. That's all there is to it.
          •  Then I submit you're not reading with (6+ / 0-)

            much comprehension.  Because what I've read from "most posters here" is nothing of the sort.

            I disagree that the rape accusations are "all there is to it."

            Are you really contending that a person can have legitimate fears of political persecution but once they are accused of a crime those fears cease to be legitimate?

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

            by jrooth on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:33:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think his fears are legitimate given that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              they conveniently showed up right after he was accused of crime.

              •  Yeah, amazing how Sweden suddenly went from (0+ / 0-)

                "my shield" to "that evil US pawn just looking to extradite me".  Never mind that surrender under an EAW from the UK would require that both Sweden and the UK approve so he'd have been safer just going back to Sweden.

              •  Seriously? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gooderservice

                He had never expressed any fear of being detained by the US before this case?

                That's simply not true.

                “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 Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 06:12:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Sometimes I wonder if people even read diaries.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gooderservice

            before they offer their two-cents.

            No new issues in this diary.
            That's bull

            The NEW issues in the diary are: (1) the lead prosecutor, who re-opened the case after a different prosecutor dropped it for lack of evidence just stepped down. (2) one of the accusers, Ms. Ardin, fired her lead attorney due to lack of communication between them, a self-promoting media campaign on the lawyer's part, and a general loss of confidence in him as her legal representative. And, (3) the chief justice of the Swedish high court is scheduled to deliver a paid speech in Australia about the Assange case, which is highly irregular considering the fact that the case is ongoing.

            All that is new.

            I don't see how anyone can view this case in a cut & dried manner.

            It's complicated.

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

            by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:50:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re (0+ / 0-)

              A LECTURE on the Julian Assange case by a top Swedish judge is unusual but not unprecedented, a leading human rights and constitutional law expert says.  Quote:

              Mr Assange has condemned Justice Lindskog's decision to speak in Australia, describing it as "absolutely outrageous".

              WikiLeaks has also said it is "baffling" that a Swedish judge would fly to Australia to talk about the case.

              "Yet prosecutors won't fly to (the) UK to question him," the organisation tweeted.

              But George Williams, a leading law professor from the University of New South Wales who will also take part in the panel discussion on Wednesday, said Mr Assange had little to fear.

              "This is a little unusual, but different countries have different standards when it comes to public comment on cases," Professor Williams told AAP.

              "The key thing is he's not actually sitting on the case."

              Prof Williams said because the Assange case was of such public interest, it was not unreasonable for someone with intimate knowledge of the Swedish legal system to talk about it in general terms.

              From what he had read and heard, Justice Lindskog was expected to play it "fairly straight", he said.

              Also taking part in the panel discussion will be high profile human rights advocate Julian Burnside QC and Adelaide barrister Claire O'Connor.

              Furthermore, you wrote:
              the lead prosecutor, who re-opened the case after a different prosecutor dropped it for lack of evidence just stepped down.
              Multiple falsehoods.

              1) The "different prosecutor" (Finne) never dropped "the case".  She dropped one charge.  Before said victim's statement was even typed up, in calling off an arrest warrant she had issued for Assange way too soon (remember way back when you all hated Finne for leaking Assange's name to the media and trying to arrest him when he hadn't refused to cooperate?).  No charge relating to AA was ever dropped.

              2) "She" did not reopen the case.  A judicial review board reopened the case, which was pretty easy given that even the victim's statement wasn't in consideration at the time, let alone forensics, cross examination, etc.  Ny was assigned to the case after it was reopened.

        •  Here's an lol, and another lol. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          Did it work?  I changed the topic, right?  Did I distract enough?  If not...

          lol, and another lol.  

    •  ^^^ THIS ^^^ (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban, TooFolkGR

      Thanks for finding a way to encapsulate the hypocrisy-fest on display here.

    •  +1 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TooFolkGR

      What a quote.  I'm keeping that one.  :)

  •  I'm really leery of the alleged CIA connection (7+ / 0-)

    to Anna Ardin.  As someone who grew up in Miami and had plenty of friends who's parents were deeply involved in the various anti-Castro groups and militias, I can say from my knowledge of their experience that it's pretty much impossible to do anything actively anti-Castro without being associated with some organization that has at least some CIA backing.  That doesn't make one a CIA asset.

    The whole situation is dodgy enough without going down the path of attacking the accusers, especially since it doesn't seem to have been either of them who have been pushing this agenda of taking Assange in custody in Sweden.

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

    by jrooth on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:03:46 AM PDT

    •  Do we know what would make a militant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anorish

      Swedish feminist like Ardin so interested in anti-Castro causes?

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 11:26:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sebastianguy99

        But perhaps she became aware of the Ladies in White because of her feminism, and admired and supported what they are protesting for.

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

        by jrooth on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 11:59:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry, but is this... (0+ / 0-)

        "NEWSFLASH: Woman who Assange slept with at gathering of political activists turns out to be political activist"?

    •  Yeah, as I wrote elsewhere... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth

      That "CIA agent" claim comes from a counterpunch article written by Assange friend (and famous holocaust denier and unbelievably misoygnistic author) Israel Shamir, where he does this whole game of 7-degrees-of-separation to try to claim that she's a CIA agent.  That is, she wrote articles in a journal published by a group connected to another group headed by a guy connected to another guy who a blog says is a CIA agent, and she worked with a cuban women's rights group who once held a parade in Florida where Celene Dion marched along with a guy who blew up a plane.  Therefore, AA is a CIA agent!

      As I wrote before: "Let's see.... Anna Ardin is involved in the same political party as politician and actor Gert Fylking... who voiced a vehicle in the Swedish version of the Pixar movie "Cars"... which was written by Dan Fogelman... who also wrote "Crazy, Stupid Love", starring... Kevin Bacon! My god, Kevin Bacon is behind all this!"

  •  I'd shy away from the CIA connection. It seems (7+ / 0-)

    to be a very thin connection at best.  Whereas the tatic of attacking the accuser is a very strong tatic and could backfire.  

    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    by thestructureguy on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:24:16 AM PDT

  •  Transparency in the Press? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mickT

    http://en.rsf.org/...

    We're #32! We're #32! We're #32!

    Of course, England is not that far ahead of the USA... So, there goes my theory about the Guardian and BBC.

    The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution. Paul Cezanne

    by MeToo on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 11:51:13 AM PDT

    •  Interesting list—US may be at #32, but France (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MeToo, mickT, markthshark

      is even lower!

      What countries at the top of the list seem to have in common above all is being non-Anglo Saxon Protestant.

      As for the Guardian and the BBC, they are now (a few columnists excepted) just as much mouthpieces of the empire as the NY Times and CNN.

      American exceptionalism is America's road to perdition.

      by Alexandre on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:12:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nick Davies is one of those exceptions... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooderservice
        (a few columnists excepted)
        He's the author of the Guardian article I cited in the diary.

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

        by markthshark on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:58:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Assange is not a folk hero (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi

    whether or not he's guilty of the crimes he's accused of Assange is not a folk hero, he's an attention seeker

    In the time that I have been given,
    I am what I am

    by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:08:59 PM PDT

    •  Sure. (8+ / 0-)

      But he also happens to have done the world a great service by creating Wikileaks.

      I'm not big on the whole concept of heroes.

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

      by jrooth on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:22:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And your evidence for that is? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ichibon, Anorish, JesseCW, markthshark

      How can you prove what the motivations of a public figure are? Is every activist an attention seeker by default?

      Do you think Kos is an attention seeker, too?

      I really can't think of any reason why there is so much anti-Assange sentiment around here other than that many Kossaks are easy dupes of the US propaganda machine.

      American exceptionalism is America's road to perdition.

      by Alexandre on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:24:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  very simply (0+ / 0-)

        by looking at what they do

        out of the thousands of documents released by wikileaks most have had absolutely nothing to do with whistle blowing and instead have more to do with embarrassing the US

        so yes Assange is an attention seeker and no hero

        I'm not going to engage your straw man though I will say that if you want to think yourself 'special' and that you 'really get it' well that's up to you but I find such thinking dangerously silly

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:33:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep duhban (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, markthshark, gooderservice

          and YOU know this because You have been reading WL well forever..
          Having read them..what is YOUR opinion on this
          http://wikileaks.org/...

          ashes..ashes..we all fall down

        •  yep duhan this was a little embarassing.. (6+ / 0-)

          http://www.youtube.com/...

          but I am confused about yer logic

          out of the thousands of documents released by wikileaks most have had absolutely nothing to do with whistle blowing and instead have more to do with embarrassing the US The folks named in this this article "whistle blowers ...embarrassed our govt right?
          http://www.thenation.com/...

          I do not have the facts to form an opinion on the rape cases...
          But i consider Manning to be an American hero and wikileaks made that possible...

          you should stick to your  knowledge of science...
          jist sayin"

          ashes..ashes..we all fall down

          •  your repsonse makes little sense (0+ / 0-)

            wikileaks has released tens of thousands of US documents most of which have done nothing of a whistle blowing nature.

            Frankly Manning knew or should have known what he was doing (if he is in fact guilty) was a violation of every NDA and secrey document he signed. As such it is what it is regardless of how worthy his cause was.

            That said please name me the atrocities Wikileaks has uncovered by the US though it's releases, if you can name more then 20 I'd be utterly surprised. Mostly because outside of ABu Graib (yes spelling I know) and torture by Bush I can't think of many others

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 03:45:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  We need more such attention seekers. nt (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nota bene, Anorish, JesseCW, markthshark

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:25:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes because clearly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi

        we need more hypocrisy and silliness.

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:33:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Only silliness here is people denouncing Assange (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Anorish, markthshark

          American exceptionalism is America's road to perdition.

          by Alexandre on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:42:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, because 'serious' leakers (0+ / 0-)

            ... make fake news sites and fake twitter accounts to try to make it look like their opponents are supporting them; rob a book publisher of half a million pounds; blackmail Amnesty International for even more; make fun of Reporters without Borders; reroute funds from their leaking organization to their own personal defense; repeately call the leaks their "property", repeatedly threaten to sue those who report on them in a manner you didn't permit, and make your volunteers sign one of the most onerous NDAs imaginable; release "important" Stratfor news that turns out to be a Nigerian spam email; alienate most of your team in one way or another; get accused of sexually assaulting other whistleblowers and have your organization's #2 accuse you of repeatedly pinning down their tomcat to the point of causing a nervous tick because "males need to learn to be dominant"; and on and on and on (I could literally spend hours here).

            I'm sorry, but Assange is not some great exemplar.  It's a real shame that he ended up basically in charge of all this.

    •  Assange did more for freedom (4+ / 0-)

      Than the last 6 decades of US foreign policy. Wikileaks was a spark for the Tunisian revolution and all that followed. He also exposed the fake US military investigation into the helicopter crew who murdered Iraqi civilians, including the good samaritans who tried to help the wounded. That makes him a folk hero to me and millions of people around the world. We need many more such attention seekers and fewer smug cynics.

      •  I think the only polite response to that is (0+ / 0-)

        pure laughter

        Yes the US has a troubled history since WW2 (though you could argue further back) but it's also done wonders with forgien aid for food and vacations

        Your myopic view blinds you to what Assange really is up to and if you are going to demand special treatment for Assange then I want nothing to do with you

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 03:42:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read something (5+ / 0-)

          Your response is risible. "A troubled history" indeed. Overthrowing democracy in Guatemala and supporting the slaughter of 200,000 people. Overthrowing a secular democratic government in Iran and supporting the butchers that followed, including the Shabak. Chile was more of the same as were the death squad governments in central America and much of south America, not to forget SWAPO and other psychopaths in africa. Of course, this doesn't even include wars of aggression, wars crimes, against Vietnam, 4 million dead, and Iraq, another million or so dead and millions maimed. And these people think they have some moral grounds to criticize Assange? Through the looking glass stuff.

        •  Yup. (0+ / 0-)

          Totally on point.

          Your tip money is keeping those ingrates in place.

  •  hmm, so Claes is an opportunist who politicized (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    markthshark, gooderservice

    this case and used it for his own purposes?

    Who could have known.

    Wonder why Nye has left the case that she built.


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

    by bronte17 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:40:57 PM PDT

  •  Meanwhile, the CIA agent who destroyed the torture (4+ / 0-)

    tapes (she should get a job with the Vatican), has been promoted, only a week ago, by new ex-torturer CIA chief John Brennan.

    The message seems very clear, doesn't it?

  •  Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. (0+ / 0-)
    and is now waiting to see if the Scandinavian country will attempt to extradite him
    The concept of Sweden extraditing Assange is absurd because they can - and already did - request him under the EAW process, which is much simpler.  That's surrender, not extradition.  And Assange already appealed all the way to the British Supreme Court and lost each step of the way.
    to face allegations of sexual assault by two women.
    It depends on what you classify as sexual assault - if you mean rape or a broader definition.  The translations used by the British courts for the charges are unlawful coersion and 2x molestation against AA and rape against SW.  There is only one rape charge concerning only one woman.
    (for not wearing condoms)
    Not at all accurate.  The rape charge (charge #4 on the EAW) is for F*ing a girl in her sleep.  It is merely an "aggravating circumstance" that "Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her."

    The next most serious charge, unlawful sexual coersion (charge #1), also has nothing to do with condoms.  It is that "Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from
    moving or shifting."  To put it another way: that he pinned AA down and tried to force her legs open until she curled up into a ball and nearly started crying.  It's not rape because he then stopped, although two of the three examining police officers initially wanted to charge it as such.

    Of the two molestation charges (#2 and #3), only one has to do with condoms, and it's that "Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge."

    Assange also faces the threats of extradition for totally other reasons by both Britain and the U.S.
    However, the prosecution team in Sweden now seems to be mired in a state of upheaval
    Except that that story turned out to be false (bottom of the article).  It just blows me away that so many pro-Assange reporters don't even bother to call in to check if their stories are accurate.  The same thing with the "no DNA found on the condom" story, the same with the "Assange is an enemy of state" story, etc.  And then all these other secondary sites just blindly quote the first reporter's crappy "reporting".
    The turmoil in the Swedish Prosecution Authority's effort to extradite Mr Assange comes as another leading Swedish judge prepares to deliver an unprecedented public lecture in Australia next week on the WikiLeaks publisher's case.
    Except that it's hardly unprecedented.
    I don't even know if Scalia would give a speech on a case currently before the court.
    As quoted above, it's not a case before his court.
Thumb, nota bene, RF, samizdat, ogre, deben, glitterscale, dfarrah, Bob Love, karlpk, Shockwave, Hope Despite All, GayHillbilly, RFK Lives, gjohnsit, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, opinionated, TheMomCat, joynow, bronte17, mint julep, susakinovember, whenwego, Agathena, ask, PeteZerria, Nate Roberts, Dallasdoc, figbash, Sychotic1, MeToo, dkmich, Diana in NoVa, zerelda, Josiah Bartlett, Tirge Caps, sb, Brecht, 3goldens, Tinfoil Hat, ichibon, chimene, corvo, basquebob, dewtx, ChemBob, david78209, YucatanMan, lennysfo, Sun Tzu, lotlizard, Sandino, kaliope, Tool, zinger99, Lisa Lockwood, snoopydawg, bookwoman, peacestpete, mrchips46, Alan Arizona, kathny, CJnyc, martini, esquimaux, Orinoco, detroitmechworks, Mr Bojangles, Dvalkure, blueoasis, triv33, philipmerrill, gooderservice, SadieSue, real world chick, JVolvo, joe shikspack, Preston S, myrealname, Turbonerd, Timothy J, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, kurt, shaharazade, AllanTBG, sea note, ZenTrainer, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, ammasdarling, Tamar, One Pissed Off Liberal, old wobbly, devis1, ColoTim, edsbrooklyn, la urracca, david mizner, nookular, newpioneer, artisan, jnhobbs, Wreck Smurfy, Empower Ink, JDWolverton, GAS, Johnny Nucleo, poligirl, Alexandre, Involuntary Exile, Calamity Jean, Lujane, tofumagoo, MrJayTee, mofembot, 3rdOption, priceman, ZhenRen, prettygirlxoxoxo, cybrestrike, J M F, arendt, The Dead Man, ewmorr, bobatkinson, bsmechanic, CanyonWren, EquationDoc, dRefractor, petral, sfarkash, Nannyberry, Words In Action, ruscle, commonmass, The Jester, renzo capetti, ffour, Betty Pinson, DrTerwilliker, MsGrin, ericlewis0, Floande, Nada Lemming, tgrshark13, allenjo, slowbutsure, HiKa, thomask, merrily1000, MRA NY, nogo postal, The Rational Hatter, bluedust, PhilJD, Marihilda, Friendlystranger, disillusionedbabyboomer, Mentatmark, No one gets out alive, anodnhajo, greenbastard, Horace Boothroyd III, Mr Robert, Arahahex, Rizzo, FrY10cK, Bisbonian, AZ Sphinx Moth, CalBearMom, mythatsme, Chaddiwicker, jbob, Smoh, footNmouth

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site