The US kills a lot of people and I'm not particularly confident that they'd refrain from killing Assange out of good will or decency or anything, but I think they'd have to do it in some fairly underhand manner that they could do just as well outside the US.
Because if there is one thing the US is known for, it is waiting for legal jurisdiction to kill someone.
If they were going to kill anyone ever for anything they didn't like, it would have happened already to a whole lot of people. Life is not a James Bond film.
I wonder what's wrong with me, it took me three times to understand what was the weird stench coming from this sentence. I then understood than 'minor citzen' thing you did. Well played, almost got me.
I said minor as in legal minor in the US... Sorry, english is not my first language, and although I tried to write in several ways, this was the best I could :( (I don't remember the exact age of the murdered, only that he was a minor)
I may have over-read it, but I understood it as than citizen being targeted because of his presence in a third-rate country, and therefore by default a possible terrorist and an affordable loose.
What is strange is the use of 'minor'. As far as I know, their is officially no caste system in the US, so no minor or major citizenship. It may also be another case of me over-reacting, 'minor' meaning in this situation 'only one'.
Assange is holed up in a secure embassy on foreign soil. They would need to break and enter in order to kill him which would be difficult and likely to start diplomatic issues.It's harder than you give it credit to kill someone cleanly in those circumstances.
If the Department of Justice issue a official statement to this fact, then Assange can leave the embassy and return to Sweden for that short interview with the investigator.
Afterward if the Swedish prosecutors want to continue and go to court with only one out of the two women as witness (the other one refuses to cooperate with the prosecutor), and have a nice and likely quite short, then hey, that would make for an interesting day or two in the news. No one really expect it to be much more than that.
Do you have a cited source where he has said he do not want to go to Sweden to answer questions. All the objections has always been about the US, and the tendency for Sweden to lay flat for the US regarding justice.
His proceedings have nothing to do with obscure laws or costumes. He is accused of raping two women. Sweden is a democratic country with established rule of law, unlike China.
Do your research. What he is accused of is considered rape only in Sweden. It wouldn't be considered rape in the US, the UK, or any other country except that one.
I think you're being downvoted unfairly. It seems likely he crossed serious boundaries. Forcing or sneaking unprotected sex after being asked repeatedly to use a condom is pretty damned rape-y, and in some jurisdictions is legally rape (and by my personal definition, it is rape...consent can be withdrawn by either party at any point in the interaction).
So, yeah, he probably should answer for that behavior. I'd be willing to believe that one woman lied to discredit him...I'm less willing to believe that two women did so. Unless they were actually in the employ of government agencies, in which case, he's merely imprudent.
Assange is, unfortunately, a very flawed sort of protagonist. Snowden and Manning seem vastly more sympathetic, to me. Where Assange has a massive ego, Snowden and Manning seem extremely humble...and I have a difficult time imagining either being assholes that force themselves on others sexually. It's a shame they're the ones facing the most serious charges.
Assange isn't even charged with anything, he is wanted 'for questioning' and he has agreed to be questioned over video link but for some reason the police demands that he comes here to Sweden to be questioned.
It's purely political, and the second he sets foot in Sweden (heck, probably outside of the Equador embassy) he will be shipped off to the US.
This is due to differences in the procedural law. Under the Swedish system, he can't be charged until he's arrested and interrogated.
According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be
taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at.
Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary
investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is
surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
First off it's a lie that Assange needs to come to Sweden for interrogation, we (sweden) interrogate people abroad all the time, it's called 'Mutual Legal Assistanced Treaty'.
So he can be interrogated in England or at the Equador embassy just fine.
After the first chief prosector dismissed the case directly, and another prosecutor (Marianne Ny, who is a close friend of the womens attorney) brought it up again a week later, Assange stayed in Sweden and was available for questioning for four whole weeks!
Then he was told by swedish authorities through his lawyer that he was free to leave Sweden and did, for England.
Three months later prosecutor 'Marianne Ny' issues a european arrest warrant for suspicion of sexual harassment, so that they can question him which they according to the prosecutor was unable to do during the four weeks he remained in Sweden.
Also, neither of the two women went to the police to issue a rape accusation, they wanted to know if they could force Assange to take a HIV test, as they both had unprotected sex with him (the women were also friends).
Here is the actual preliminary investigation on which this 'case' is based, it's in swedish naturally, but if you are able to read it/translate it you will be absolutely clear on how this is all a sham and not even remotely sexual harassment.
When the police announced that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation, one of the two women became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.
That women is the same one who only went to the police because she was concerned that Assanged might had ripped the condom intentionally, and wanted to get Assange to make a HIV test (which he later agreed to).
I don't see much of an argument that this is really two women crying rape. The first woman and the case around if she was sleeping and thus in an helplessness state will likely be argued in court. The other woman is unlikely to even show up in court, and since the testimony has not been signed, its even a question if any case can be made without her.
I agree with you on the NSA-level ethics concept. I believe there are people within US intelligence agencies that would stoop this low without a second thought.
But, it's also plausible that Assange is an abusive asshole. Given the circumstances, and the story of the women involved, I'm inclined to believe he's an asshole more than I'm inclined to believe the NSA planted two women into the circle of people supporting him in Sweden. I strongly suspect something would have come out by now to give us some indication if that were true.
I've been involved in activist groups. Including some that have been infiltrated by local, state, and federal agents. It tends to come out. There tend to be clues. It may take years (and we may still find out at some point that these women really were honeypots set by some government), but it usually does reveal itself. It's difficult to maintain a completely artificial life and story for a long period of time. I know that cops, feds, spooks, will do horrible thing...but, there are limits to what they can do without being found out.
Is this one of those cases? I don't know for sure. But, I'm inclined to say no. I could be wrong.
Why do you even talk about infiltration? That is such a ridiculous straw man. No, it's far more likely the women were bribed to talk about rape after the US got pissed off at Assange.
Anyway the whole case is really fishy if you look into it, whether they were bribed or not. One of the women (the one with the dildo shoes), for example, actually blogged about accusing men of rape as a valid way of getting back at them. Does that seem legit to you?
One of the women was singing Assange's praise on Twitter the days before, and it seems she only got upset once she found out he'd slept with another woman during his stay. Even then, the question was initially just about getting him tested for STDs, as it was an overzealous prosecutor who turned it into a rape case.
So it seems like it wasn't an NSA plant, but rather, a case of a politicized investigation over a narcissist sleeping with two adoring fans, tinged by Swedish institutional feminism, which the US then ran with. We already know the US has wound Sweden around its fingers.
I don't particularly believe the rape story, but I also don't believe the NSA had anything to do with it, though I'm sure they greatly enjoyed the fallout.
Ardin described a method for revenge against an ex on her blog prior to the Assange case that was very similar to the events in questions. It seems quite possible to me that the two women both were angry after finding out he had sex with both of them, and decided to teach him a lesson, and that it went too far.
Especially given that one of the women have categorically refused to sign the police interview report and refused to have anything further to do with the police after she learned the police was pursuing a rape investigation, and that neither woman alleged rape when they approached the police. Exactly as Ardin had previously described on her blog, they "just" described events to the police that were sufficiently ambiguous to get the police to start an investigation. An investigation that was closed until a prosecutor with a long time political agenda of massively tightening Swedish rape laws got hold of it.
Couple that with Assange acting like quite the asshole and being paranoid about the US, and it was all set for plenty of drama.
No less amazing than how some people insinuate things they have no basis for in a way that frankly amounts to a disgustingly underhanded and cowardly ad hominem, based on expression of scepticism to one specific case, based on the extremely unusual facts of the case.
You're particularly far off base given that I explicitly point out I don't believe it's a conspiracy at all, rather raise the possibility that it might amount to an unfortunate combination of the motivations of two separate parties that I explicitly don't believe have been conspiring.
I also most certainly believe Assange did act like an asshole in - we can conclude that from what he has not disputed. It's even possible he did commit rape.
But we don't know.
And those possibilities those not negate the other things I wrote.
What we do know is that there's no open and shut rape case here, but some statements that may or may not amount to allegations of sexual assault and/or rape - the statements that have been published during the extradition hearing have not been contested in a court (the UK extradition hearings are conducted on the basis of whether or not there is a case to answer assuming the prosecutions statements are true, not whether or not the prosecutions representation is correct).
In terms of the case in Sweden, there have been (substantiated) allegations of police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct; statements were provably illegally leaked to the press by police; at least one of the women have not signed statements and have refused to deal with the case after the new prosecutor took over. All of which puts us in a situation where we have a highly unusual case, with several we might likely never know one way or the other without a trial.
So forgive me for stepping on your sensibilities for not being prepared to just automatically assume guilt for someone who has not yet even been charged, in a case where the first prosecutor claimed there were no indications a crime had occurred, and where just what we do know about the case includes a laundry list of violations of police procedures, violations of Swedish law (on behalf of at least one police officer or prosecutor), and outright lies from the current prosecutor.
Clearly having an opinion based on what is known about this specific case must mean those of us who not automatically assume Assange is guilty must be trying to deny that rape ever happens.
For someone who isn't sure what happened, you've invested a suspicious amount of energy into arguing that Assange is innocent. I wonder why. Someone who isn't sure what happened would more likely prefer that the legal process be allowed to reach its conclusion, rather than championing the cause of a man who has hidden in a foreign embassy in order to evade that process. I consider that behavior much more suspicious than the behavior of his alleged victims.
If we're entertaining the idea that the NSA set this up, what's to stop them from just blackmailing the two women too, or threatening them? Or promising them lots of money to cooperate? Etc
Two women who knew each other, and who both found out that he'd slept with both of them. If it had been two strangers who did this independently of each other, I'd have agreed with you, but it was not.
It is also worth pointing out that it is not clear that they lied. They did not allege rape. They asked questions of the police that led the police to unilaterally start a rape investigation that was subsequently shut down by the senior prosecutor for lack of any evidence.
It was first when a second prosecutor unusually decided to override and take over the case that police against started going after Assange and the case escalated.
One of the women furthermore has refused to sign her statements to the police, and there are allegations that the interviews were carried out in violation of police procedures (a friend of one of the women worked at the police station in question and was involved in the interviews).
Considering how intrusive rape prosecutions can be for the victim, none of this is surprising. Often the only thing that motivates a rape victim to press charges is the knowledge that the rapist has raped other women in the past and is likely to rape other women in the future if he isn't stopped.
This behavior also happens to be totally unsurprising if he is not guilty. The point being that the fact that they went to the police together is not in any way something that in meaningful way indicates guilt.
But it is also not, as you suggest, evidence of innocence either.
I would be more than willing to leave the entire question to the Swedish justice system, but the accused is hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy to evade the Swedish justice system so unfortunately we may never know for sure.
He's hiding out for a number of reasons, one of which is the United States government has shown a desire to extradite him to the US. That seems like it may be resolving itself. Maybe once there's something concrete, Assange can go home (or Sweden) and this particular set of questions can get answered.
> I'd be willing to believe that one woman lied to discredit him...I'm less willing to believe that two women did so.
One needs to consider the circumstances.
Would you believe a woman wearing dildo shoes who's accusing a world famous journalist for rape? Yes, dildo shoes. I'd say it affects my view on what has been said.
http://lolpics.se/pics/76665.jpg
Whatever transpired, calling it rape is offensive to all the women out there who was violently forced to submission.
The most disturbing thing about this "case" is that the Swedish police published Assanges name in the world press on suspicion of rape, even before a court had seen any evidence. What about the right to a fair trial? Assange certainly was judged without one.
The Swedish police stubborn refusal to interview Assange in the UK is also suspicious. Authorities have no such inhibitions in other less high-profile cases.
My advice to all of you is to keep your d*ck in your pants when visiting Sweden and meeting a girl wearing dildo shoes.
This is similar to slut shaming. How someone acts before, after, or any other time doesn't affects whether they wanted to have sex in that instance. You could walk around in bondage gear all day, it doesn't mean you're asking to be raped, or change the legitimacy of accusations of rape. If someone has sex with you against your will (or in this case, they don't use protection and claim they did), it is a crime. Full stop.
> How someone acts before, after, or any other time doesn't affects whether they wanted to have sex in that instance
It's sad to see that the presumption now is that a man is guilty. Once upon a time, the burden of proof was on the accuser. When Mr Assange is accused of rape, with no proof except the accusation, Mr Assanged is asked to prove his innocence.
I dare say that how someone acts before sex is the most significant indicator on if sex was consensual that we can find.
> (or in this case, they don't use protection and claim they did), it is a crime.
Mind you, would you consider it rape and a crime if a woman said she was on the pill, and slept with you, and it turns out she was lying about it? Let's not keep double standards for the lying men and lying women.
Well, you might, but I can not label this as "rape". If someone lies about using protection, it makes them liars but not rapists.
OK, to get this out of the way: the law in the jurisdiction he's being charged in explicitly considers this to be rape. It's not trumped up by the media, it's how the law is written.
> It's sad to see that the presumption now is that a man is guilty
The presumption is that he is accused, and he ran away and never had a trial. You can't really run away from the trial forever, hide behind the "presumed innocent" doctrine, and say it makes you a saint. It just means you haven't been convicted, because it was mechanically hard to get you to the right place to convict you.
> would you consider it rape and a crime if a woman said she was on the pill, and slept with you, and it turns out she was lying about it?
Condoms offer protection from STIs, as well as pregnancy. Lying about using a condom potentially exposes your partner to myriad health problems, in addition to unwanted pregnancy. So no, it isn't equivalent to lying about using the pill - lying about the pill doesn't change your risk of contracting HPV, HIV, etc.
If a woman lies about using birth control, and she does conceive, she's either going to have an abortion (which is physically and psychologically traumatic), or go through pregnancy and birth. The father has some obligation (which he could probably be free from if he can prove she lied), but there's not really any physical risk there. He's not going to catch a life-threatening disease from someone lying about the pill.
"which he could probably be free from if he can prove she lied"
While I agree with you on everything else you've said, this one is untrue in the US. Even if a woman lies about being on the pill or infertile or whatever, if she has a child and you are the father, you are on the hook for child support. Doesn't matter if she lied. The law looks out for the child, first and foremost, and the child did not lie to you.
So, if you're really not wanting to have a child with someone and not wanting the responsibility of paying child support, use protection or don't have sex with her.
Can you enlighten me what shoes are appropriate for a girl to wear to have her rape story taken seriously?
Rape is treated pretty fucked up by the society - it is generally blame and ignore the victim. But if she somehow gets authorities cooperation and get the story to the media - than the guy's life is destroyed no matter the outcome of the trial. So the justice is rarely served.
> But if she somehow gets authorities cooperation and get the story to the media - than the guy's life is destroyed no matter the outcome of the trial. So the justice is rarely served.
This is a wrong we know have happened.
The alleged rape (by not wearing a condom, which is what is called rape in this case) may or may not have happened, and should have been let to the court to decide.
Leaking the - presumably innocent - Mr Assanges name to the press and calling a global man hunt for him as a rapist, before even the first interview, is a wrong that certainly will have an impact on his entire life and career.
> Would you believe a woman wearing dildo shoes who's accusing a world famous journalist for rape? Yes, dildo shoes. I'd say it affects my view on what has been said. http://lolpics.se/pics/76665.jpg
Those are going to make for an interesting anthropology thesis a couple thousand years from now.
The original post was about being charged in US. The rape acquisitions are between the Swedish government and him.
The whole story is extremely messy on many levels. I think that I buy more the accuser's story. Assange is obviously an asshole. But the Swedish government IIRC has repeated refuse to promise not to extradite him to the US. And I definitely see why he cannot afford to go to Sweden to defend himself against the charges.
The point that consent can be withdrawn at any point during the interaction - I am not sure it is biologically feasible to have such high standard - a person can rarely be accused of clear mind near and during the climax.
Sounds pretty rape-y. I support Assange in any case the US government brings against him regarding leaks. But, it sounds like he behaved more than a little inappropriately with two different women. Sounds like a pattern of abusive behavior, and he shouldn't simply be able to wave that away.
Unless there's a realistic case to be made for both women being in the employ of government agencies...I think we have to at least question the man's integrity on this front.
The charges in Sweden sound rather politically motivated, especially given the revelations about Sweden's place in the whole international NSA spying scandal...
you know what he should be charged with? rape. because he raped two women.
That's really an issue for a court with the proper jurisdiction to decide after charges via the justice system, not you, me or anyone else here based on the limited evidence we have available in the public domain. Smearing either side on the basis of hearsay is not real justice for anyone involved.
It also has nothing to do with any charges related to wikileaks.
What's your problem with conspiracies? You seem to think it's synonym of "myth" or something like that. It's not, many conspiracies have actually happened (read some history) and continue to happen.
Besides, he hasn't said it's not a conspiracy. Just that this crowd doesn't fall for conspiracy theories with little evidence. Meaning there is massive evidence on this one.
I say you raped me. Would you gladly come to my country to "answer questions"? If you don't, I will say you are a "conspiracy theorist" (whatever that means).
