Assange

[boston bean]

I'm hot and cold....

My opinion:

I applaud him for leaking the video of American soldiers murdering innocent Iraqi's.

Leaking of the cables was unnecessary and may have broken US law.

On rape. I don't think consensual sex with a woman and not wearing a condom is rape. I do have questions as to the charges the swedish government is making, and think they may be doing it to get him to turn him over to US authorities.

I don't know how the hell Assange is going to get out of the Ecuadorean Embassy, without being sent back to Sweden.

I haven't paid so much attention to this that my feelings could not change. But, from what I know the above is where I am at.

Please feel free to flame or be nice in your posts back to me with your opinions. I hope the latter though.

[tama]

1. Mostly agreed

except for what you think about publishing the cables and any relation to US law. Which is the most important question here, (lack of) government transparency and attempts to intimidate and silence independent journalism and whistle blowers.

I don't know your thought about treatment of Bradley Manning who has been accused of leaking some documents and held and tortured without trial much much too long.

[treestar]

2. I think we have laws against leaking documents for a reason

I don't see it as a viable position to support any random person just leaking them whenever.

We already know there are atrocities committed by US soldiers at times.

When in Sweden, obey their laws.

[Whisp]

3. about the same here

I'm not sure if what he does/did with wikileaks will really help towards something positive, but I admire the enormous guts it took to do that.

I think he is one of the smartest people I've ever heard.

As to the rape charges - that is so obviously a set up, it would be comical if not so tragic.

[TorchTheWitch]

4. these are the allegations:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

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.

Allegations 1, 2 and 3 are sexual assault while the 4th allegation is rape. I can understand for one not paying much attention to this case why you would think that there was only one allegation that was consensual sex without a condom since so many people here who know better keep pushing either that lie or the broken condom lie.


I'm right where you are with applauding the leak of the video of the murdering of the Iraqi's but not hip to the cable leaks particularly since with all the ones I read there was nothing criminal in any of them (which makes the theft of them NOT whistleblowing), and yes, as far as I'm aware it was a violation of the law. However, I don't believe that Assange/Wikileaks was merely acting as a journalist/press concerning those documents and do believe Assange in particular likely had a hand in stealing them to begin with, and as far as the US having interest (if there is any after all this time) in prosecuting him it would be for that rather than for publishing them.

As for the grand conspiracy theory of Sweden making up these charges so Assange could be extradited to Sweden and then from there extradited to the US... ridiculous nonsense that all started from Assange's own mouth when the assault allegations hit the press. Well, he needed to say something to gain support for not going back to Sweden to answer to the allegations and obviously wants to save his reputation maybe not just for himself but for Wikileaks. Problem is that it's just stupid as hell, and it's amazing to me that anyone believes it. Then again, I really don't think anyone REALLY does... they just feel they have to in order to continue to support him. Lot of that nonsense goes on here whatever the issue is.

As for the whole thing with Ecuador... I assumed he'd jump bail in some way, and the only way he'd go back to Sweden regardless of the law would be by being captured, though I wonder at this point if he'll just go ahead and finally turn himself in since he's backed himself into a corner camping out in Ecuador's tiny embassy... he's actually imprisoned himself for all intents and purposes, but I think he believed he'd be getting asylum in the actual country of Ecuador. As for Ecuador's motives... I absolutely believe that they used Assange and gave him this tiny bit of asylum only within their bitty embassy as leverage for something they want from Britain for something else entirely, and I'm more sure about that because they're negotiating with Britain already (and might have been since Assange moved in). This is what diplomats do, and it was clever of them to use Assange as leverage for whatever it is that they want from Britain. One way or another he's going back to Sweden and likely soon. Either he'll go stir crazy in the little prison of the embassy he made for himself or Ecuador and Britain will come to an agreement, and Ecuador will hand him over (personally, I think it will be the latter).

And now I'm off again to continue my gardening. So far it still looks like crap.

[reorg]

9. If you believe he had a hand in "stealing" the documents

then you have just confirmed, at least as far as you are concerned, that Assange's fears to be extradited to the US are justified.

As to the ridiculous condom charges, yes, the main allegations (allegation #2; #4) are about condom use, allegation #2 is specifically about the "broken condom" (see below).

Allegation #1, although the condom is not mentioned in the prosecutor's description which you accept without examining what it is actually about, is almost literally taken from Ardin's description how Assange allegedly tried to stop her from reaching for a condom, as you can see if you follow the link to her police interview below.

Allegation #3 is indeed the only one that doesn't involve lack or unwillingness of condom use but is particularly specious if you know the context as lined out in the summary of Ardin's interview (see link below).


To my knowledge, nowhere, not in the US, not in England and Wales, and not in Sweden or elsewhere have charges of sexual assault and even rape ever been brought due to the unwillingness or carelessness regarding condom use of a partner in consensual sex. I have asked here and elsewhere many times if anybody knows of examples of such cases and always drawn a blank.

So, what is going on here, is the Swedish prosecutor trying to break new ground? Are the forces of institutionalized feminism in Sweden trying to establish that sex with a condom is the new normal and sex without one is a crime?

Or is it actually much simpler and, as your remark mentioned above suggests, the reopening of the case, after the original chief prosecutor Eva Linné had dismissed it, is directly linked to the opportunity to get Assange in judicial trouble? Was it just a ruse to restrict his movements and prepare for his extradition to the US, right when and where he was about to set up shop in Sweden with its laws favoring whistleblowers and those who help them get the stuff published?

In Sweden, the constitution grants the Right to Inform, meaning that even some (most) types of secret information may be passed on to the press or other media without risk of criminal charges. Instead, investigation of the informer's identity is a criminal offense.

Sweden's stringent whistleblower laws are protecting the anonymity of sources that have been feeding the controversial Wikileaks website with sensitive government and corporate information, according to Swedish political sources.
A law that was intended to protect sources providing information to journalists is protecting the Wikileaks website, which the United States Army highlighted as a threat to its operations in a report last month.

Wikileaks is benefiting form Sweden's basic law – Grundlag – on the freedom of print information, because it also guarantees the anonymity of sources in digital media, say sources at the European Parliament.

In Sweden, if a website registers with the public authorities and can prove it has an editor-in-chief, then it can also be protected under the law, argues the parliamentary source.

http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/sweden-gives-legal-shelter-controversial-wikileaks-site-news-426138

And here, for those who missed it, the relevant part of Sofia Wilén's police interview:

... They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she's not really sure. He ordered her to get water and orange juice. She didn't like being ordered in her own home but thought 'whatever' and got the water and juice anyway. He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast. She didn't want to leave him alone in the flat, she didn't know him well enough, but she did it anyway. When she left the flat he lay naked in her bed and was working with his phones. Before she left she said 'be good'. He replied 'don't worry, I'm always bad'. When she returned she served him oatmeal, milk, and juice. She'd already eaten before he woke up and 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 discovered he'd put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again. She'd been nagging about condoms all night long. She's never had unprotected sex. ...

http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml

Here is where Ardin describes allegation #2, the condom issue:

... Anna notices after a while that Assange withdraws from her to fix the condom. Judging from the sound, it sounded to Anna like Assange took the condom off. He entered her again and continued the act. Anna again checked his penis with her hand and again felt the edge of the condom where it should be and so let the sex continue.

After a while Assange ejaculates inside her and thereafter withdraws. Anna saw that the condom didn't have semen in it when Assange took it off. When Anna began moving her body she noticed how things were running out of her vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's semen. She pointed this out for Assange but he denied this and told her it was she who was wet with her own juices. Anna is convinced that Assange, when he withdrew from her the first time, deliberately broke the condom at the tip and thereafter continued the sex with the resulting ejaculation. In answer to a question Anna says she didn't look closer at the condom, if it was broken as she thought, but she says she thinks she still has the condom at home and will look at it. ...

http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,02.shtml

Police interview with Assange regarding allegation #2:

MG (Mats Gehlin - the chief interrogator): ... you are under suspicion and are to be formally notified of this and this is for the crime of molestation. And the notification is as follows: Assange has between 13 and 14 August 2010 in Anna Ardin's residence at Tjurbergsgatan in Stockholm molested Anna Ardin by during sex, which was initiated and completed with the explicit condition a condom would be used, with malice aforethought destroyed the condom and continued the sex until he ejaculated in her vagina.

(...)

MG: The accusation is the condom, a condom, was damaged after the act and Anna is of the opinion that at one point when you withdraw your penis there was a sound like you first removed the condom but when you entered her again she reached down and felt and she could feel you still had the condom on. Then you ejaculated and she feels amongst other things that she has semen in her. And she looks at the condom and there's no semen in the condom. And so the question to you, is this a situation you recognise in any way?

JA: No. At one point Anna pointed to the bed which had a wet spot. And said, look at that. And said, is that you? I said, no it has to be you. And we didn't talk about it anymore, at all, not at all. Until the accusations on Friday, a week later. ...

http://rixstep.com/1/20110130,01.shtml

Further transcripts at: http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml

[TorchTheWitch]

11. court documents trump some pro-Assange website

written by who the hell knows who with no actual documentation of actual police records. These aren't transcripts. It's a narrative CLAIMING they come from police transcripts on a pro-Assange site that offers no actual documentation that they came from any police transcript and not out of the writer's own head whoever the hell the writer even is). For heaven's sake, it's not even a journalist website but some website for a company that does computer stuff. THAT's supposed to be a legitimate source and one that trumps actual court rulings and testimony??? Holy cow.

Further, both women were questioned a number of times... do you really think the judge didn't have access to all of that information for review??? Of course he did. Do you honestly believe after TWO YEARS in the British courts that this information would not have called into question the veracity of the allegations and therefore the entire case as a whole? That there would have been questioning by Assange's own attorneys of the witnesses in court about this? That it would be the number one dispute the defense would claim? Why in the world were they not waving this evidence in the judge's and the witnesses faces, and why did they not bother to mention it at any time in court or in their own briefs or listed as one of their complaints at any time, ever? That's right, Assange's OWN ATTORNEYS have never ever disputed the allegations whatsoever. Are they THAT stupid and Assange is too much of an idiot to jettison them like a hot rock??? A little common sense here, please.

Further, the defense also never at any time questions the allegations as lies in order to get Assange to Sweden for the sole purpose of extradition from there to the US - it is only hinted at during the questioning of the defense's witness, Mr. Alhem. That has been all along Assange's number one claim concerning the entire case and supposedly his greatest fear yet his own attorneys found no reason to pursue it. In fact, the only acknowledgment to such a thing came from one of the witnesses for the defense, Mr Alhem, who testified that it couldn't happen. (see below)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
(begins at bottom of pg. 27)

There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defense witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing. It may be worth adding that I do not know if Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States of America. There has been no evidence regarding this. I would expect that there is such a treaty. If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued.

Now, as to the first comment you made - "If you believe he had a hand in 'stealing' the documents then you have just confirmed, at least as far as you are concerned, that Assange's fears to be extradited to the US are justified."

Hang on here... I'm supposed to support and defend this supposed justifiable fear of his that he may be extradited to the US from Sweden because when he's justifiably GUILTY? This is really funny. The whole pro-Assange crowd is of the belief that his being extradited to the US from anywhere to face such charges is because of the staunch belief that he's totally INNOCENT and the US is going to all these crazy lengths just to persecute him. Now your telling me that the US actually has a RIGHT to extradite him from anywhere to answer to those charges yet at the same time telling me that this whole case with Sweden is just an absurdly elaborate RUSE by the evil and corrupt US to get this poor innocent guy just because of his publicizing of stolen classified documents was embarrassing and not actually criminal? Make up your mind.

Yeah, I absolutely believe he's afraid to go back to Sweden to answer to the allegations, but certainly not for the ridiculous reason he claims - that being the grand absurd elaborate and wholly unnecessary ruse to be extradited to the US. It's his fear that he might be found guilty of the sexual assault and rape charges and the fear of what the whole case, win or lose, would do to not only his personal reputation but that of Wikileaks. I have no idea whatsoever if he's innocent or guilty of the allegations, but his fleeing the day before the scheduled interview was to take place and the more strenuously he balks over facing him the more guilty he appears.

[reorg]

13. descriptions of facts trump lawyer sophistry

any day, in my book.

If you don't like the website that hosts the transcripts, you can find them elsewhere, here for instance:

http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf

Obviously, you didn't know them, so at least this gives you the opportunity to become acquainted with the facts of the case.

Yes, it is sad that the questioning police officer didn't record the interviews properly and had to write a summary that is probably a somewhat biased version of what had been said. She has also made some public comments on blogs showing she has certain opinions on the matter. The police officer is a personal acquaintance of one of the "complainants", the whole bunch of them, Wilén, Ardin, the police officer are reportedly members of this social democratic religious group that had invited Assange.


The English magistrate may or may not have read any of this, but I doubt it. Anyway, it was not his job to examine evidence. You are apparently not only oblivious to the actual facts and allegations of the case, you don't even know how the EAW works. Have you actually read the "court document" that you, like others, here so frequently quote? Or just the juicy bits? Do you know what it is actually about?

The characerizations of the Swedish prosecution were taken for granted by the English magistrate. He did not make enquiries into facts of the case. He did not have to read police interviews, like he would have in normal extradition cases. He had to answer to the objections of Assange's defense, but also had to follow the procedure of the EAW which makes decisions and characerizations by prosecutors in one country unimpeachable in the country which is asked to extradite.


The rest of your blather, regarding possible extradition to the US, makes no sense at all. Of course the appearance of legality would be preferable for those who make no secret out of their deeply held convictions that Wikileaks did something very bad and Assange must be punished for it. And your "court document", again, only examines what the legal procedure would be, not any of the actual facts of the matter involved, whether it is likely, or possible, or already an ongoing process.

Ecuador has found that Assange's fears to be extradited are justified. You apparently agree.

While Sweden would probably be obliged to extradite only on the condition that the death penalty be ruled out, nobody can tell what happens should they finally get hold of Assange. The US is not exactly known to care much about the law in other countries, and we all know it's a fact that they already have had co-conspirators in Sweden when they intended to break it. IIRC it was the law partner of the women's lawyer who got the ball rolling again this time.

[Peace Patriot]

10. The two accusing women have said that he didn't rape them, he is not violent and they do not fear

him. They have also said that they never wanted him to be prosecuted. This is a government-driven prosecution. The first prosecutor dropped the case because it was so flimsy. Another prosecutor was brought in to revive the charges but NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED. He is wanted "for questioning," nothing more. And to create an international incident over this flimsy and absurd case is simply mindboggling, not to mention an insult to all the women who have been raped and have fought for justice.

But there is more. Julian Assange made himself available for questioning--in Sweden and again in London, and the Ecuadoran embassy recently offered their own venue for the Swedish prosecutor to question Assange. And in every case, the Swedish prosecutor has declined to question Assange!

What does that tell you? It tells you this: They want Assange IN CUSTODY and they don't give a crap about their own trumped up case. Why do they want a man wanted for questioning in custody? Because, as they've done before--colluding with the Bush Junta on "rendering" and torture--they want to give this journalist to the U.S. for burial in a dungeon like Bradley Manning. We don't know the Swedish government's motive for this but with Karl Rove as their adviser, we can imagine. (There surely is greed in there somewhere, for one thing.)

Lord, I hope the Swedish government falls over this outrage, the bastards. They have made a mockery of justice for women--and, by the way, you risk adding to that mockery by repeating these non-charges without acknowledging what the two women have now said and without mentioning that NO CHARGES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT!

And they are also making a mockery of human rights. These rights are already a joke in the U.S. Sorry to put it that way--given the democratic principles that have been dumped, and the grief and horror to the victims and to all of us. But that is the reality "inside the Beltway." Fundamental human rights and freedoms are a joke.

The U.K. further has made a mockery of international law and human rights conventions by threatening to storm the Ecuadoran embassy to seize Assange--in violation of diplomatic protocols that go back thousands of years. The U.K. thus imperiled every diplomat on the planet, including their own--as well as every applicant for political asylum. It is not known if the U.K. really intended to do it, or were just being bullies (because their negotiation position with the Ecuadoran Embassy is so untenable). It appears that they may have intended to do it--if they could have gotten away with it--but backed off possibly due to objections from their own diplomats. But even threatening to do such a thing puts them into the category of lawless thugs and has caused a furor around the world, most especially in Latin America whose countries are only just achieving sovereignty and independence, at the end of a centuries-long struggle first with European colonialists then with the U.S.

And what is at the basis of this hysterical activity--by countries that have tortured and colluded on torture, these self-proclaimed bastions of human rights, these liars and hypocrites who are serving the transglobal super-rich?

No doubt their hysteria derives from their fear of disclosure of their secret machinations, their interference in other countries on behalf of the transglobal super-rich and their terrible crimes--war, murder, torture, theft, arms dealing, war profiteering, banksterism, repression and tyranny.

There is also the arrogance of power--depicted by Lewis Carroll in the political commentary that has come to be known as "Alice in Wonderland." The U.S., the U.K. and Sweden are acting like the "Red Queen" in whose kingdom human rights are a joke--she who orders the white roses to be painted red, she who yells, "Off with their heads!" at the slightest provocation, she the power-crazy cartoon of "empire." They got away with stealing Iraq's oil--and Libya's. They are no doubt planning to steal Iran's--and possibly Venezuela's, Ecuador's and Argentina's and maybe even Brazil's. Their cowed populations--including us--don't have any say in the matter, as to the use of our soldier's lives and our taxes. And along comes Julian Assange (Alice in Wonderland) saying, "Wait a minute! This is wrong! People need to know about this!" And they thought they could just do away with him--ever so sneakily with false "sex crimes" charges and "rendition." "Off with his head!" Power gone mad.

Good luck with your gardening, by the way! And thanks for reminding me about the wrong-colored roses. We're all just "Playing Cards" to these corporate-imperial powers.

[HooptieWagon]

5. I tend to agree.

I consider Assange neither a hero or villian.

Sweden's case seems shakey and unwarranted. The women said they weren't raped, substantiated by their actions. That should be end of story. Sweden has pursued the prosecution despite the women's objections, and has illegally released the women's names and other information regarding the case. While I'm not familiar with Swedish law, that would seem to indicate a successful prosecution is unlikely, or any prosecution being brought at all. That casts doubt on Sweden's motives and push to get Assange on Swedish soil.

Sweden does have a history of cooperation with US in extraordinary rendition and torture, which makes their shakey rape case look like a pretext for the aforementioned.

Legal US charges seem unlikely. Assange is not a US citizen, nor is he subject to US laws. Supreme Court precedent protects journalist publication of whistle-blowers. Simply put, any case brought by the US would be laughed out of court.

However, the US had made no bones about their desire to silence Wikileaks. The only way to accomplish this is extrajudicially.

No matter what one thinks of Assange as a person, or as a journalist, he is entitled to fair, open, and legal court proceedings. US, Sweden, and UK are doing anything but...
And oddly enough they have supporters on DU.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. I don't think he's any hero, and far too much...

time is being spent on him.

This wasn't the Pentagon Papers exposing an illegal war and Wikileaks isn't the NY Times or Washington Post. It was just some kid pushing a button to dump whoknowswhat and Wikileaks uncritically sending it all out there. Calling it free speech, journalism or anything else demeans whatever there is of free speech or journalism.

I think Assange is a conman who blew up his own scam up big time and Manning is the stooge taking the fall. I could be wrong, but no evidence of that so far.

What's Wikileaks doing lately? Here's the latest...

Wikileaks: Syria Files
2012-07-05

Thursday 5 July 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing the Syria Files – more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012. This extraordinary data set derives from 680 Syria-related entities or domain names, including those of the Ministries of Presidential Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Information, Transport and Culture. At this time Syria is undergoing a violent internal conflict that has killed between 6,000 and 15,000 people in the last 18 months. The Syria Files shine a light on the inner workings of the Syrian government and economy, but they also reveal how the West and Western companies say one thing and do another.
Wikileaks: The GIFiles
2012-02-27

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

Read more at the-gifiles.html

7 million emails? Maybe, just maybe, there's something of interest in all that between the revised bids lunch menus and retirement party notices, but I doubt anyone's bothered to check before dumping. Just throw it out there and hope someone has the time to go through it all.

But, the word is they will search through all that, and more, if you tell them what you want and pay for it.

Freelance spies, industrial and otherwise?

[lunatica]

7. I've always preferred the truth

In my opinion the truth, unvarnished and bald, good or bad, is best to know. I hate thinking about living a life based on falsehood. It robs your life of true meaning. But I don't hold everyone else to that standard. I try to live and let live.

[moondust]

8. Beyond consideration of this particular case,

I think the U.S. and probably other countries would like to stop a "money for secrets" industry before it metastasizes and leads to a loss of confidentiality and even greater international distrust in all things diplomatic and military.

[loli phabay]

12. Well i think that having consensual sex and lieing about the condom is considered a crime in Sweden

but my biggest on is the having sex with the women who was asleep or attempting to have sex. I think a lot of people dont get the Swedish system of Law or can accept the fact that different countries have different laws to the US. At the very least these are charges he must answer.