Sweden's reputation is on trial in Julian Assange case

108 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2010-12-09 15:50

6079_Smith_W

I think I said it in my first post. If this were about anyone about whom we are not sympathetic it would be in the feminist forum.

(edit)

or at the very least the notion that there might have been a sexual assault might be up for discussion. As it is there is a deafening silence.

It's not that I don't think there are some who are gleeful about these charges, or that the prosecution might be more zealous than it might otherwise be, but until we see if it goes to court I don't think it is a good idea to prejudge what is going on here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-rape-allegations

and case in point:

@ wage zombie

I may not be smart, but I am smart enough to not get into a discussion of what does and does not constitute sexual assault.

Thu, 2010-12-09 15:52

#53

wage zombie

Cueball do you have a reference for there being no charges?

Thu, 2010-12-09 15:53

#54

Cueball

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think I said it in my first post. If this were about anyone about whom we are not sympathetic it would be in the feminist forum.

You did. And it was a completely irrelevant statement for a number of reason. One, this is just your supposition, which you have no way of proving. Two, I don't start threads in the Feminist Forum, so no, it would never be there for that reason alone. You seem to be trying to make some point based on suppositions, and your own personal feelings about the management of the site.

I for one, entirely deny you statement. Now that I have denied it, perhaps you can move on to being involved in the actually thread topic as opposed to coming up with weird, unprovable and entirely abstract accusations of bias. If you want to take those up start a thread in Rabble Reactions to discuss the issue of "form" and "content" on the web site, so that I can ignore it.

Thu, 2010-12-09 16:06

#55

6079_Smith_W

They might in fact be doing him a favour:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i2SweyEppcrPf_oPqwhrGo...

I hope these charges get dealt with in a timely fashion, and I hope that the U.S. doesn't try to use them as an excuse to extradite him on another matter.

But as for these accusations being nothing other than a plot to bring him down, I don't think anyone can make that claim until we know what evidence the prosecutor has, and what the judge has to say about it.

Likewise the notion that Sweden's reputation somehow hangs on how they deal with Assange. I think I'll save the contempt of court for after they actually have a hearing.

Thu, 2010-12-09 16:44

#56

Snert

So if I'm reading correctly: Assange is innocent, so his accusers must be lying.

Thu, 2010-12-09 16:44

#57

Cueball

wage zombie wrote:

Cueball do you have a reference for there being no charges?

Quote:
Mr Assange was arrested when he presented himself to police officers in London on the morning of December 7th. A judge denied bail, despite pleas from a clutch of celebrity supporters, and remanded him in custody until December 14th. Though he faces no criminal charges yet, prosecutors there want to question him. They are responding to complaints from two women with whom he had initially consensual sexual encounters. His lawyer, Mark Stephens, plans to appeal, saying the extradition is "politically motivated".

The Economist

One really has to ask: "What possible new information can Assange provide?" If the case is to succeed it would necessarily succeed really only on the testimony of the alleged victims. In that case it would seem that a criminal charge would be the next step if prosecutors were convinced their case was good.

Could it be that moving to a charge would mean, among other things, that the world, and Mr. Assange's lawyers would get to see the evidence, as they have requested? It is very convenient that they get to spread malicious gossip and innuendo through the press, but do not have to present their case.

Why, one asks, have the requests from Assange and his legal team for interviews with the Swedish prosecutor been denied, or ignored? And in the light of the fact that Assange has offered the interview, why the need for an extradition proceeding?

Thu, 2010-12-09 16:48

#58

Cueball

Maybe. But whether they are lying or not, Swedish prosecutor does not seem to feel that their testimony alone is enough to proceede to a criminal charge, so perhaps she is doubtful about their statements, after all.

Thu, 2010-12-09 16:49

#59

Snert

The first part. The second just naturally follows. He cannot be innocent AND at the same time their allegations against him be true.

Unless by "innocent" you simply mean "... until proven guilty", but that would be kind of unnecessary to note, since it's clear that everyone is aware he hasn't been tried yet.

Thu, 2010-12-09 16:51

#60

Cueball

As I pointed out the Swedish prosecutor doesn't seem to think their testimony alone, is good enough to convict.

Thu, 2010-12-09 17:19

#61

Snert

So when a prosecutor doesn't believe an alleged rape victim, that lends credibility to the notion that they're lying?

For the record, I don't doubt that Assange's political foes are rubbing their hands together with glee over all of this, but all the same I guess I'm finding the assertion that he's innocent (and by extension, that the plaintiffs must be lying) a bit incongruous on babble.

Thu, 2010-12-09 17:58

#62

wage zombie

Snert wrote:

the assertion that he's innocent (and by extension, that the plaintiffs must be lying)

I think there are other possibilities. The plaintiffs could be telling the truth, but if the incidents that they're describing may not legally constitute rape.

We don't really know the details until they actually charge him.

Thu, 2010-12-09 19:11

#63

Cueball

Snert wrote:

So when a prosecutor doesn't believe an alleged rape victim, that lends credibility to the notion that they're lying?

It lends credibility to the idea that the prosecutor does not believe that their testimony will be considered strong enough in a "he said, she said" case to be conclusive evidence that will prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that not being able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt proves that all the witnesses for the prosecution automatically become liars, I can't help you with your special problem.

Thu, 2010-12-09 19:12

#64

N.Beltov

hah ha.

Thu, 2010-12-09 19:31

#65

6079_Smith_W

Cueball wrote:

Snert wrote:

So when a prosecutor doesn't believe an alleged rape victim, that lends credibility to the notion that they're lying?

It lends credibility to the idea that the prosecutor does not believe that their testimony will be considered strong enough in a "he said, she said" case to be conclusive evidence that will prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that not being able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt proves that all the witnesses for the prosecution automatically become liars, I can't help you with your special problem.

Not that this theoretical exercise has anything to do with the actual case, but if the alleged victims aren't lying, but there isn't enough evidence to convict, then you aren't left with an accused who is innocent, but one who has in fact committed assault, but is lucky enough to escape justice.

I know it is tempting to think this is all a set up and a conspiracy, and there may be elements of that to it. But the fact is these accusations do need to be taken seriously, and the notion that there might be at least some truth to them isn't absolutely impossible.

It's not like no other person in the world has been undone by thinking with the wrong head, or some other bad behaviour or lapse in judgment (or actual crime). And no, I am not assuming that is what has happened here. But I will wait to hear what the judge has to say.

Thu, 2010-12-09 19:31

#66

Cueball

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Snert wrote:

So when a prosecutor doesn't believe an alleged rape victim, that lends credibility to the notion that they're lying?

It lends credibility to the idea that the prosecutor does not believe that their testimony will be considered strong enough in a "he said, she said" case to be conclusive evidence that will prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that not being able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt proves that all the witnesses for the prosecution automatically become liars, I can't help you with your special problem.

Not that this theoretical exercise has anything to do with the actual case, but if the alleged victims aren't lying, but there isn't enough evidence to convict, then you aren't left with an accused who is innocent, but one who has in fact committed assault, but is lucky enough to escape justice.

Yes. This brings us back to the issue of why the Swedish prosecutor is executing an Interpol warrant for a charge that they do not believe they can make on the evidence that they possess, the testimony of the alleged victims, and instead requires self-incriminating evidence from the accused?

Thu, 2010-12-09 19:35

#67

6079_Smith_W

Maybe because the accused isn't the one calling the shots here. Warrants and subpoenas aren't always negotiable. And I'm not an expert in international criminal law, but evidently there was enough grounds for an interpol warrant, and I assume Mr. Assange's lawyer asked and exhausted the very same questions you are posing.

Thu, 2010-12-09 19:43

#68

kropotkin1951

It is all so fascinating including this report that one of the women has stopped cooperating with the police weeks ago and is no longer in Sweden. It could well be that Assange broke one of Sweden's assault laws but if that was the case they should have charged him before the documents were leaked and not given permission for him to leave the country. I hate coincidences as much as a I hate conspiracy theories. The link has a link to her own blog site but since I don't read Swedish I have no idea what she is saying herself.

Quote:

Ardin's blog shows that she has recently posted from the Palestinian territories. Her most recent blog posts make no mention of WikiLeaks or its founder, Julian Assange.

Some of Ardin's most recent Tweets suggest sympathy for WikiLeaks.

"MasterCard, Visa and PayPal -- belt them now!" Ardin urged in a Tweet Wednesday, evidently referring to the cyber-attacks launched on those institutions after they severed their relationships with WikiLeaks.

In a more recent Tweet, she complained of the media reports digging into her background.

"CIA agent, rabid feminist / Muslim lover, a Christian fundamentalist, flat & fatally in love with a man, can you even be all [these things all] the time?" she Tweeted in Swedish.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-accuser-stops-cooperating-pol...

Thu, 2010-12-09 19:47

#69

Cueball

Actually the European Arrest Warrant requires absolutely no evidence whatsoeve: The European Arrest Warrant an 'accident waiting to happen' for expats like WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

You don't really seem to understand the point I am trying to make here.

Prosecutors do not usually lay charges unless they believe they can win the case. They don't just act on every allegation of accussation that floats their way. They have better things to do than flood the courts with spurious charges. In this case the prosecutor has not pressed criminal charges. Why not?

Thu, 2010-12-09 19:54

#70

6079_Smith_W

Cueball wrote:

Actually the European Arrest Warrant requires absolutely no evidence whatsoeve: The European Arrest Warrant an 'accident waiting to happen' for expats like WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

You don't really seem to understand the point I am trying to make here.

I understand that Interpol feels they have enough grounds (I did not say evidence) to act on the warrant. Perhaps you should call and set them straight. Although as I said, I presume Assange's lawyer is on that.

Thu, 2010-12-09 20:03

#71

Papal Bull

No one gains from this 'rape-rape' defence of Julian Assange:

Quote:
In defence of Assange, the Wikiblokesphere has fixed on the details of the cases available in the public domain, in particular consent to intercourse only with a condom, as proof of a spurious "non-rape-rape" charge. In fact what is significant about the Swedish system is not that it employs a broader definition of rape than in other countries - it doesn't - but that prosecutions are based not on consent but whether a complainant's "sexual integrity" has been violated. In addition, alleged victims can instruct their own lawyers, who often seek second opinions after an initial dismissal, which may offer a rather more pedestrian explanation for why the cases have been re-opened now.

Thu, 2010-12-09 20:04

#72

Cueball

Dude. You don't understand. The grounds upon which Interpol issues the warrant is simply that the Swedish prosecutor wants him arrested. Interpol isn't some interlocutory body that made a decision based on vetting any substantive facts, other than the fact that the Swedes wanted this guy. It is an organization that just replicated the Swedish arrest warrant for execution in all of Europe.

There are no "grounds", or anything.

So we are back to the Swedish prosecutor, and my question as to why they have not charged Assange with a crime? If there evidence is just so damn good, why not press the charge?

Thu, 2010-12-09 20:30

#73

Cueball

Uh huh. Does that article explain why the Swedish prosecutor is seeking to extradite people, on warrants for cases that they do not feel they can proceed to a criminal charge upon?

Also, the article is factually misleading on the point that: "alleged victims can instruct their own lawyers, who often seek second opinions after an initial dismissal, which may offer a rather more pedestrian explanation for why the cases have been re-opened now."

Quote:
"Less than 1 percent of all Swedish prosecutors’ decisions, or about 2,000, were appealed in 2008, according to the prosecution authority’s website. The original decision was changed in 220 cases."

So in fact, overturning a previous prosecutors decision happens in 0.1% of all cases.

The writer seems to be trying to make the point that re-opening the case happens often, in fact these decisions are appealed rarely, and cases are almost never re-opened. But that is the kind of thing that people make up when they are writing for the sake of polemic.

Thu, 2010-12-09 21:45

#74

6079_Smith_W

@ Cueball

As I said, I am no lawyer, so I don't consider myself qualified to determine what constitutes "enough evidence" in Sweden. That's a job for Mr. Assange's lawyer.

By saying they had enough grounds I simply meant that they had the legal power to detain him for questioning. My reason for saying that is the fact that they have done it. And furthermore, their warrant was upheld by the Supreme Court, so like it or not, whatever they are doing is solidly within the law in Sweden.

As for the body of the case, I guess we'll find that out once Assange gets to Sweden. And as that article I cited claimed, he might be safer there than in the U.K.

Of course, the Americans may not be the only ones who would like to get their hands on him.

Thu, 2010-12-09 22:35

#75

autoworker autoworker's picture

In terms of their respective notoriety (and spectacle), how does Assange's status compare/contrast with the media hubbub surrounding U.S. attempts to extradite Roman Polanski? Are there any analogies to be drawn here? Is the resulting chatter different by the nature and import of their celebrity?

Thu, 2010-12-09 22:56

#76

Cueball

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Cueball

As I said, I am no lawyer, so I don't consider myself qualified to determine what constitutes "enough evidence" in Sweden. That's a job for Mr. Assange's lawyer.

It isn't a question of "enough evidence" it is a question of what evidence, the only evidence that the prosecutor can proceed with is the evidence of the two alleged victims. It is not as if Assange is going to say that he slept with the second woman while she was "sleeping without a condom" now is it? He is obviously going to deny that, wether or not he is guilty or innocent. So what new evidence is interviewing Assange going to bring to light?

Nothing-at-all. It is her word against his, plain and simple. Who is more believable.

Therefore all of the case resides on the evidence of the two alleged victims. If that constitutes the entire evidence that they can rely on, then why not proceed to making a direct criminal charge based on that evidence?

Fri, 2010-12-10 00:22

#77

vaudree

Let's say that you are a woman and you are in the bedroom with a guy and it is a bit dark and you hand him a condom. If the guy pretends to put it on but doesn't and you don't realise that he didn't you would be very upset. You use a condom because you don't want STDs or to get pregnant and you have to now worry about both and that is definitely not fair on a person. Most of these charges seem to be based on the fact that the woman thought that JA was using a condom and he wasn't. If the person had AIDs and did not use a condom, it would be a crime. If the person slept with your friend and then you, it also increases the risk that goes with promiscuity of having an STD.

The rest of it sounds like lawyers embellishing a bit - like giving the most disgusting possible description of the Missionary Position they can.

I think that there may be a bit of a difference between the initial complaint by one of the women and what the lawyers are saying in the media.

I don't think that the women should be bashed. I think what the first woman did was just confirm that this guy didn't use condoms and that her friend is known to always use them - which would back up what her friend said. Though, I doubt that JA can be charged with rape for being a two-timing jerk who puts his pleasure ahead of his partner(s) piece of mind.

I do agree that none of us would be sticking up for Conrad Black if he was charged with rape because we dislike many of his views and don't hold him in high regard.

I do agree that Sweden cares more about discrediting JA than about the women involved - and that this case is probably more about punishing whistleblowers by ruining their reputations than anything else. However, JA should not have done what he did either because, at the very minimum, he proved that he can be a total jerk.

Fri, 2010-12-10 00:38

#78

6079_Smith_W

@ Cueball # 75

If one assumes that these accusations might be in good faith, I can see that as a good reason why they would want to speak to him.

And as for the prospect of a stalemate, I think it would be more significant if the two women refused to cooperate (as one of them - Anna Ardin - apparently has already).

Speaking generally, I think even if a case seems like it will come down to the accuser's word against the accused, that is not a valid reason to drop it because how can they know that until they actually speak wiht the accused? Again, without bringing in the obvious factors that are overshadowing this case, if prosecuters dropped an assault case without even talking to the accused I think some people would think they were either incompetent, protecting the accused, or not taking the accusation seriously.

And yes, I know that may not be exactly what is going on here. I am just saying that they have to exhaust all avenues they can before giving up.

Fri, 2010-12-10 01:00

#79

wage zombie

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Speaking generally, I think even if a case seems like it will come down to the accuser's word against the accused, that is not a valid reason to drop it because how can they know that until they actually speak wiht the accused? Again, without bringing in the obvious factors that are overshadowing this case, if prosecuters dropped an assault case without even talking to the accused I think some people would think they were either incompetent, protecting the accused, or not taking the accusation seriously.

The case had already been dropped. They already talked to him and he complied and then the case was dropped and he was free to leave the country.

Fri, 2010-12-10 01:47

#80

Cueball

vaudree wrote:

Let's say that you are a woman and you are in the bedroom with a guy and it is a bit dark and you hand him a condom. If the guy pretends to put it on but doesn't and you don't realise that he didn't you would be very upset. You use a condom because you don't want STDs or to get pregnant and you have to now worry about both and that is definitely not fair on a person. Most of these charges seem to be based on the fact that the woman thought that JA was using a condom and he wasn't. If the person had AIDs and did not use a condom, it would be a crime. If the person slept with your friend and then you, it also increases the risk that goes with promiscuity of having an STD.

The rest of it sounds like lawyers embellishing a bit - like giving the most disgusting possible description of the Missionary Position they can.

I think that there may be a bit of a difference between the initial complaint by one of the women and what the lawyers are saying in the media.

I don't think that the women should be bashed. I think what the first woman did was just confirm that this guy didn't use condoms and that her friend is known to always use them - which would back up what her friend said. Though, I doubt that JA can be charged with rape for being a two-timing jerk who puts his pleasure ahead of his partner(s) piece of mind.

I do agree that none of us would be sticking up for Conrad Black if he was charged with rape because we dislike many of his views and don't hold him in high regard.

I do agree that Sweden cares more about discrediting JA than about the women involved - and that this case is probably more about punishing whistleblowers by ruining their reputations than anything else. However, JA should not have done what he did either because, at the very minimum, he proved that he can be a total jerk.

I see what you are saying.

The only problem is that in the first case it is alleged that the condom broke. Indeed, from what I understand, both parties agree that the condom broke. The dispute is over wether or not Assange force himself upon her after that point. In the second case it is agreed by both parties that a condom was used in the first instance of sex, and the dispute is over Assange allegedly having sex with her agains while she was sleeping without a condom.

So the allegations don't actually match what you have just said.

The problem I have with all of this is not the allegations themselves, but the manner in which it seems to evidence has developed after the initial complaint was brought, at a time when neither party actually was looking for Assange to be charged, the fact that both parties compared notes, that the woman in the first case only got involved as moral support, and then seemingly also had a similar complaint as the second woman.

Furthermore, the fact that the first woman seemed ok enough with what had happened to throw a party for Assange the night after the alleged offense seems to indicate a certain amount of confusion on her part. Not that this necessarily means anything, but to my mind the confusion and shifts in the narrative means that I think it is highly unlikely that the case could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt.

Fri, 2010-12-10 01:50

#81

NDPP

Obama Administration Steps Up Vendetta Against WikiLeaks' Julian Assange

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/wiki-d10.shtml

"The British Independent Newspaper reported Wednesday that US and Swedish officials were engaged in behind closed doors discussions aimed at delivering WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange into American custody. Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer acting for Assange, told ABC radio in Australia that any extradition to Sweden would be a precursor to extradition to the US. She said there were 'rumours already that an indictement had been put before a grand jury in the US'.

Fri, 2010-12-10 01:56

#82

ReeferMadness

I don't know the women in question so I can't question their integrity. I don't know Julian Assange so I can't question his integrity.

What I can say is that the facts about this case seem really odd and smack of political interference. If it looks like a duck and quacks, it's probably a duck. The law-and-order freaks are sending a clear message: anyone who leaks embarrassing information is going to have his/her life ruined.

And people here seem to be playing right into it.

Fri, 2010-12-10 02:33

#83

milo204

and lets not forget what wikileaks proves. That the US will manipulate countries to get what it wants. It also interferes in the judicial systems of countries, bribe countries etc. The way the legal systems in the EU are being used seem like something is up. The US is trying desperately to find something to charge him with and is considering making up a law just so they can charge him, are apparently working on extradition, etc...

And the evidence in the rape case just seems so flimsy. Both these women, who are friends, are allegedly raped by assange, even that seems fishy. How would this happen to both of them? Wouldn't the one who it happened to first tell her friend if it was serious enough to tell police? especially if you knew your friend was going to sleep with him? And then even if that happened, if you both found out you were raped by the same man, would you decide first to only tell one persons story, or would you not at the outset say "we were both raped by the same man" to the police?

add to that the lawyers statements on democracy now about all the irregularities in the way the case is progressing, the deleted texts, the party...i mean it might all be some weird coincidence, but it's enough for me to have serious doubts about the integrity of the charges, especially considering the timing of it.

And to compare it to roman polanski who drugged and raped a child? come on!

Fri, 2010-12-10 02:52

#84

NDPP

Assange in the Grip of the US Empire

http://warisacrime.org/content/assange-grasp-us-empire

"Close allies hold journalist while US comes up with charges and plans extradition.."

Fri, 2010-12-10 03:03

#85

Cueball

This is the stuff I love about this prosecution:

Quote:
"The reason for my request is that we need to interrogate him. So far, we have not been able to meet with him to accomplish the interrogations."

The Stockholm court was set to hold a hearing at 2:00 pm (1300 GMT) Thursday on whether to order Assange's detention, which according to Swedish media would allow authorities to issue an international warrant for his arrest.

"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," the prosecution authority's statement said.

A warrant was first issued for Assange's arrest on August 20 by another prosecutor, but was withdrawn just hours later.

Ny, head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes, reopened the rape probe against the 39-year-old Australian on September 1, but did not request his detention and allowed him to leave Sweden.

Swedish Wire

So, the same prosecutor who let Assange leave Sweden after re-opening the case, now claims that she needs an international warrant to bring him back for questioning, when Assange's lawyer repeatedly has stated that they have offered voluntarily to meet with her to discuss the case.

Seems almost like an intentional plan to let him leave Sweden in order to have an excuse to execute the warrant and have him detained, without having to bring charges and proceed to trial.

Fri, 2010-12-10 04:21

#86

Cueball

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Cueball # 75

If one assumes that these accusations might be in good faith, I can see that as a good reason why they would want to speak to him.

And as for the prospect of a stalemate, I think it would be more significant if the two women refused to cooperate (as one of them - Anna Ardin - apparently has already).

Speaking generally, I think even if a case seems like it will come down to the accuser's word against the accused, that is not a valid reason to drop it because how can they know that until they actually speak wiht the accused? Again, without bringing in the obvious factors that are overshadowing this case, if prosecuters dropped an assault case without even talking to the accused I think some people would think they were either incompetent, protecting the accused, or not taking the accusation seriously.

You are still missing the point. I am not asking why the case has not been dropped, I am asking why Assange has not been charged with a crime.

I am not suggesting that the charges should be dropped because its his word against hers, not at all. I am asking why the prosecutor does not have the confidence in her evidence to proceed to a charge. The fact that the prosecutor has not proceeded to a charge suggests that the prosecutor does not believe that her word is good enough to win the case against his.

Fri, 2010-12-10 18:46

#87

Merowe

ReeferMadness wrote:

I don't know the women in question so I can't question their integrity. I don't know Julian Assange so I can't question his integrity.

What I can say is that the facts about this case seem really odd and smack of political interference. If it looks like a duck and quacks, it's probably a duck. The law-and-order freaks are sending a clear message: anyone who leaks embarrassing information is going to have his/her life ruined.

And people here seem to be playing right into it.

Hear hear!

Fri, 2010-12-10 18:49

#88

milo204

just one more egregious piece of evidence that the charges have nothing to do with rape and everything to do with US power.

Fri, 2010-12-10 21:24

#89

Cueball

What the Assange case reveals about rape in America

Quote:
None of this is to say that the accusations against Assange are true - we have no idea. And there is little doubt that the timing of the legal proceedings is politically motivated: Assange's accusers came forward in August (the same month they allege being attacked), but it's only now that authorities are vigorously pursuing the case.

Fri, 2010-12-10 23:27

#90

autoworker autoworker's picture

Cueball wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Cueball # 75

If one assumes that these accusations might be in good faith, I can see that as a good reason why they would want to speak to him.

And as for the prospect of a stalemate, I think it would be more significant if the two women refused to cooperate (as one of them - Anna Ardin - apparently has already).

Speaking generally, I think even if a case seems like it will come down to the accuser's word against the accused, that is not a valid reason to drop it because how can they know that until they actually speak wiht the accused? Again, without bringing in the obvious factors that are overshadowing this case, if prosecuters dropped an assault case without even talking to the accused I think some people would think they were either incompetent, protecting the accused, or not taking the accusation seriously.

You are still missing the point. I am not asking why the case has not been dropped, I am asking why Assange has not been charged with a crime.

I am not suggesting that the charges should be dropped because its his word against hers, not at all. I am asking why the prosecutor does not have the confidence in her evidence to proceed to a charge. The fact that the prosecutor has not proceeded to a charge suggests that the prosecutor does not believe that her word is good enough to win the case against his.

I don't envy the prosecutor in this case: How else can she check her facts, vis-a-vis those of Assange, without first interviewing him in person? Her decision, of whether or not to proceed with charges, may very well depend on his response(s), or lack thereof.

I think it will come down to who she believes is more credible (incriminations invoked by means of rack and/or thumbscrews notwithstanding).

Other considerations about possible extradition, on subsidiary matters, should be immaterial in determining, in her mind, whether or not a sexual assault had ocurred. Besides, I'm sure she's aware that her entrails, and those of the Swedish legal system, will be duly examined.

All this, while the Sturm und Drang of the epic Wikileaks saga (spectacle) continues apace. Stay'chuned....

Fri, 2010-12-10 23:44

#91

Cueball

autoworker wrote:

Cueball wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Cueball # 75

If one assumes that these accusations might be in good faith, I can see that as a good reason why they would want to speak to him.

And as for the prospect of a stalemate, I think it would be more significant if the two women refused to cooperate (as one of them - Anna Ardin - apparently has already).

Speaking generally, I think even if a case seems like it will come down to the accuser's word against the accused, that is not a valid reason to drop it because how can they know that until they actually speak wiht the accused? Again, without bringing in the obvious factors that are overshadowing this case, if prosecuters dropped an assault case without even talking to the accused I think some people would think they were either incompetent, protecting the accused, or not taking the accusation seriously.

You are still missing the point. I am not asking why the case has not been dropped, I am asking why Assange has not been charged with a crime.

I am not suggesting that the charges should be dropped because its his word against hers, not at all. I am asking why the prosecutor does not have the confidence in her evidence to proceed to a charge. The fact that the prosecutor has not proceeded to a charge suggests that the prosecutor does not believe that her word is good enough to win the case against his.

I don't envy the prosecutor in this case: How else can she check her facts, vis-a-vis those of Assange, without first interviewing him in person? Her decision, of whether or not to proceed with charges, may very well depend on his response(s), or lack thereof.

Really? I can't see how anything he could contribute anything of value to the evidence at all, except to undermine it by denying the charges. In interview guilty or not, he will simply deny, keep to a simple story, and let things roll out in court. His legal advice is certainly that good.

There is nothing she can hope to achieve by winning this interview through extradition and she knows it. Therefore, all she has to go on is the evidence as presented by the alleged victims, as such, that must either stand on its own or fail. If she has not bothered to charge him, it is because she either doesn't feel she has a winnable case, or because she is trying to hamstring the defense by not letting them see the evidence, which she would be required to do if she proceeded to a charge.

It is very convenient that the European Arrest warrant does not actually require the evidence to be presented. It basically means that any prosecutor in Europe can simply demand extradition for anyone, and have them incarcerated just because they want them in jail, somewhere.

What is not to envy? She is sitting pretty here, no liabilities, and no need to prove anything.

Sat, 2010-12-11 00:09

#92

wage zombie

Cueball wrote:

It is very convenient that the European Arrest warrant does not actually require the evidence to be presented. It basically means that any prosecutor in Europe can simply demand extradition for anyone, and have them incarcerated just because they want them in jail, somewhere.

Agreed, this is basically what it means.

Sat, 2010-12-11 00:56

#93

autoworker autoworker's picture

Cueball wrote:

autoworker wrote:

Cueball wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Cueball # 75

If one assumes that these accusations might be in good faith, I can see that as a good reason why they would want to speak to him.

And as for the prospect of a stalemate, I think it would be more significant if the two women refused to cooperate (as one of them - Anna Ardin - apparently has already).

Speaking generally, I think even if a case seems like it will come down to the accuser's word against the accused, that is not a valid reason to drop it because how can they know that until they actually speak wiht the accused? Again, without bringing in the obvious factors that are overshadowing this case, if prosecuters dropped an assault case without even talking to the accused I think some people would think they were either incompetent, protecting the accused, or not taking the accusation seriously.

You are still missing the point. I am not asking why the case has not been dropped, I am asking why Assange has not been charged with a crime.

I am not suggesting that the charges should be dropped because its his word against hers, not at all. I am asking why the prosecutor does not have the confidence in her evidence to proceed to a charge. The fact that the prosecutor has not proceeded to a charge suggests that the prosecutor does not believe that her word is good enough to win the case against his.

I don't envy the prosecutor in this case: How else can she check her facts, vis-a-vis those of Assange, without first interviewing him in person? Her decision, of whether or not to proceed with charges, may very well depend on his response(s), or lack thereof.

Really? I can't see how anything he could contribute anything of value to the evidence at all, except to undermine it by denying the charges. In interview guilty or not, he will simply deny, keep to a simple story, and let things roll out in court. His legal advice is certainly that good.

There is nothing she can hope to achieve by winning this interview through extradition and she knows it. Therefore, all she has to go on is the evidence as presented by the alleged victims, as such, that must either stand on its own or fail. If she has not bothered to charge him, it is because she either doesn't feel she has a winnable case, or because she is trying to hamstring the defense by not letting them see the evidence, which she would be required to do if she proceeded to a charge.

It is very convenient that the European Arrest warrant does not actually require the evidence to be presented. It basically means that any prosecutor in Europe can simply demand extradition for anyone, and have them incarcerated just because they want them in jail, somewhere.

What is not to envy? She is sitting pretty here, no liabilities, and no need to prove anything.

Considering the stakes, it would be foolish to assume that she's bluffing. Time, I agree, is presently on her side. She may be hoping to stregthen her hand, as more muck percolates to the surface (she certainly has a powerful apparatus at her disposal). At the very least, if she's confident that both alleged victims will stick to their narrative, the corroborating testimony may be sufficient to lay charges, with an even chance of conviction, under Swedish law.

What's not to envy? If indeed she's 'blowing smoke', she'll become the scapegoat for a nation of cynical toadies. Only a malignant narcissist would covet a seat at that table; if so, perhaps she's in good company.

Sat, 2010-12-11 01:07

#94

autoworker autoworker's picture

wage zombie wrote:

Cueball wrote:

It is very convenient that the European Arrest warrant does not actually require the evidence to be presented. It basically means that any prosecutor in Europe can simply demand extradition for anyone, and have them incarcerated just because they want them in jail, somewhere.

Agreed, this is basically what it means.

To digress, it would also apply to alleged war criminals, and human traffickers as well, I presume.

Sat, 2010-12-11 05:54

#95

Merowe

autoworker wrote:

Considering the stakes, it would be foolish to assume that she's bluffing. Time, I agree, is presently on her side. She may be hoping to stregthen her hand, as more muck percolates to the surface (she certainly has a powerful apparatus at her disposal). At the very least, if she's confident that both alleged victims will stick to their narrative, the corroborating testimony may be sufficient to lay charges, with an even chance of conviction, under Swedish law.

What's not to envy? If indeed she's 'blowing smoke', she'll become the scapegoat for a nation of cynical toadies. Only a malignant narcissist would covet a seat at that table; if so, perhaps she's in good company.

Forget Sweden. He won't be there long enough to get comfortable - he's headed to the United States, unless the Swedish public can mobilize sufficiently to resist American pressure. There is an INEVITABILITY to all this that really spoils the plot for me, I must say.

Sat, 2010-12-11 08:01

#96

autoworker autoworker's picture

Merowe wrote:

autoworker wrote:

Considering the stakes, it would be foolish to assume that she's bluffing. Time, I agree, is presently on her side. She may be hoping to stregthen her hand, as more muck percolates to the surface (she certainly has a powerful apparatus at her disposal). At the very least, if she's confident that both alleged victims will stick to their narrative, the corroborating testimony may be sufficient to lay charges, with an even chance of conviction, under Swedish law.

What's not to envy? If indeed she's 'blowing smoke', she'll become the scapegoat for a nation of cynical toadies. Only a malignant narcissist would covet a seat at that table; if so, perhaps she's in good company.

Forget Sweden. He won't be there long enough to get comfortable - he's headed to the United States, unless the Swedish public can mobilize sufficiently to resist American pressure. There is an INEVITABILITY to all this that really spoils the plot for me, I must say.

The only thing inevitable is that the prosecutor will eventually have to play her hand. To extradite Assange to Sweden, on spurious grounds, only to pack him off to the U.S., would be, not only cynically underhanded, but also appallingly outragous. Indeed, Sweden's international reputation is at stake. We'll see if integrity and statesmanship, at least in its perception, still mean anything in these times.

Sat, 2010-12-11 08:05

#97

6079_Smith_W

@ Cueball

It's not that I don't agree that Assange is likely being railroaded, or that at the very least this situation is being exploited. Most of the evidence, and the timing point to that.

But there is one missing piece here. There may indeed be nothing to this case, but the fact is that Assange's persecutors did not pull this plot out of thin air. If there were nothing to this but an innocent misunderstanding why did Ms. Ardin and the other woman not just meet and discuss it over coffee and put it down to bad behaviour? Why did they go to the police (or as Naomi Klein dubbed them, the Dating Police?
I won't speculate as to why they did that, but I will say there is something there that we don't know yet. Just as the whole timing of this accusation doesn't quite ring true, there is a discrepancy between what we hear about the interactions, and the fact that they saw fit to go to the authorities.

Sat, 2010-12-11 10:51

#98

Cueball

autoworker wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Cueball wrote:

It is very convenient that the European Arrest warrant does not actually require the evidence to be presented. It basically means that any prosecutor in Europe can simply demand extradition for anyone, and have them incarcerated just because they want them in jail, somewhere.

Agreed, this is basically what it means.

To digress, it would also apply to alleged war criminals, and human traffickers as well, I presume.

So what? What is the problem that people seem to be having about understanding the word "alleged". You are perhaps suggesting that it is a good thing for a prosecutor to be able to allege that someone is a "human trafficker" without any evidence and have someone extradited, because they have unpaid parking tickets?

Sat, 2010-12-11 14:44

#99

Freedom 55

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Why did they go to the police (or as Naomi Klein dubbed them, the Dating Police?

I think you mean Naomi Wolf.

Sat, 2010-12-11 14:45

#100

Unionist

[url=http://www.straight.com/node/363969]Gwynne Dyer: The accusations against Julian Assange[/url]

Sat, 2010-12-11 15:38

#101

-=+=-

Freedom 55 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Why did they go to the police (or as Naomi Klein dubbed them, the Dating Police?

I think you mean Naomi Wolf.

Wolf is yet another hypocrite on the progressive side in this whole affair.

In 2004, she [url=http://www.slate.com/id/2096152/]accused[/url] Yale professor Harold Bloom of "sexually encroaching" on her while she was a student there. What she accused Bloom of, and wanted Yale to address, was actually very similar to the crimes Assange has been accused (violating "sexual integrity"). Yet, now she rushes to Assange's defense.

Canadian progressives should run screaming from this whole stinking pile of Wiki****.

Pages

Topic locked