Julian Assange

[mykpart]

Somebody explain to me exactly what Assange has done that is illegal. I'll admit I haven't followed the Wikileaks saga closely, but what did I miss? Did he do something worse than Dick Cheney outing a CIA operative?

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. He's wanted for sexual assault and rape in Sweden.

Those are both illegal in most countries, as far as I'm aware.

He's done nothing that violates any US law and the US has no legal basis or standing for charging him with anything (as he's not a US citizen, the Espionage Act of 1917 doesn't apply; as Wikileaks' servers were not hosted in the US, no US telecoms laws apply).

[monmouth]

3. Most excellent and concise answer I've read. I read very little about him as I have no interest but

you just answered the question so well. Many thanks.

[mykpart]

5. Thank you, Spider.

I had forgotten about the sexual assault and rape charges. As I said, I have not followed his story that closely.

[Quantess]

24. He is only wanted for questioning. There are no charges.

[pnwmom]

27. The Swedish justice system never charges until after an arrest,

which would have to occur on Swedish soil. So the fact that there are no charges yet is meaningless.

[TorchTheWitch]

32. it's not as simple as that

Frankly, we don't usually charge until after an arrest either. Sweden's need to extradite Assange has to do with a step in their legal procedure that they MUST do before any charges can be filed. This is the "interview" that many people seem to believe is nothing more than a "we just want to ask you some questions" type of interview, but it is not. There is likely a translation issue that doesn't really get the meaning across as to what this "interview" is all about. It is the final step before the arrest and charges being laid after the completion of the investigation. By law they must meet with the accused and present them with all of the evidence, give them an opportunity to refute that evidence and provide any names of witnesses or other evidence on their own behalf. If the accused can give important information that may sway the opinion of the prosecutor it is taken into consideration before the decision to arrest and charge is made.

In the US the investigation is completed and the accused arrested without knowing what the evidence against them is, is not given any opportunity to refute it and offer into evidence any information they may have that could show their innocence. None of that comes out until the trial, and the accused may have to sit in jail until that time or have to cough up a lot of money for bail if they're granted bail.

I think the Swedish system is not only much more fair but likely saves a lot of unnecessary court time. Suppose you were arrested for murdering your neighbor last Tuesday night, and the investigation by the police can't find any information of where you were or what you were doing that night, and they know the murder had to have occurred sometime between 8pm and 11pm. Now, in the US they'd just throw your ass in jail, you may not get any bail so you have to sit there in jail until trial depending on what jurisdiction you're in. But also suppose that you know you were nowhere near the scene of the crime during the time it could have taken place and have evidence to show that you weren't. In Sweden you would get the opportunity to refute the murder charge and show the evidence you have that you couldn't have done the murder and offer names of witnesses that could testify that you were several states away at the time of the murder so that it couldn't have been you that did it. Suppose on that Tuesday night you had an emergency situation with your job where you had to quickly pack a bag on Tuesday afternoon and hop a plane to somewhere several states away from where the murder took place and take care of whatever this emergency situation through your employment was. You have records of your flights, witnesses that saw you and dealt with you during the time of the murder and even security video footage of you walking through the airport terminal at 2am after you flew home that night.

In Sweden the prosecutor would look at that evidence and have every reason to drop the charges right then so you are never arrested, never charged and never spend a minute in jail. Whereas in the US you'll either be in jail or out on bail, would likely get fired from your job for being an accused murderer, and the FIRST opportunity you get to show your innocence or even know what the investigation revealed (or didn't reveal!) is when you finally have to go to trial. And after all that you've lost your job, your friends pull a disappearing act having heard all about what a horrible murderer you must be on the news, and your reputation is ruined. All because of how our system works and the police being unable to find any information of where you were and what you were doing during the time of the murder.

In Assange's case there just isn't any information or evidence he could provide that would clear him - he has already admitted to having sexual relations with both the women on the dates in question - so after the "interview" where they show him the evidence from their investigation and give the opportunity to refute it he's going to be arrested, though the prosecutor can't come out and say so since that decision legally must only be made until after this "interview" and she can't break with that protocol.

There's nothing about this that Assange didn't know while he was in Sweden. He had his Swedish attorney to explain to him the procedure and the likely outcome of going to that final "interview" that was scheduled to occur the day after he left the country. He knew that if he went to that "interview" that afterward - legal procedure having properly commenced - he would be arrested.

As had been testified to during court proceedings in Britain, normal procedure concerning a case such as this in Sweden is that the suspect remains in custody until the investigation is complete so they don't get the opportunity to flee, and there is then no problem with being able to promptly conduct that final "interview" before either charging the suspect and holding them for trial or deciding the case has no merit and letting them go (The End, have a nice life). Assange was lucky as all hell that Eva Finne screwed the pooch on this and let him leave when he was supposed to remain in custody until the investigation is complete, the final interview takes place, and the suspect is either arrested and charged or the case dropped and they go merrily on their way, which is the only reason he had the opportunity to flee at all - Finne fucked up big time... not only because it was not normal procedure but because she knew he was a foreigner and would not be remaining in the country, so OF COURSE having been accused he would flee. Contrary to the belief that it was so odd that Marianne Ny re-opened the case, what was odd was Eva Finne so completely breaking with procedure and letting him go not only before the investigation was complete but before it even got off the ground and all the while knowing he would leave the country when released. If anything, in this case it appears more as though Assange got special treatment than the popular belief that he was singled out to be harassed. And what is particularly disturbing is that he KNOWS that. He would have been given by his Swedish attorney a crash course in Swedish procedure and law and knew that he either mysteriously became incredibly lucky or was given preferential treatment the average citizen doesn't get.

[pnwmom]

36. Thank you for the detailed explanation. I'd read summaries of their system before,

but yours explains why it works, not just how it works.

But the bottom line remains: this isn't just a little talk they want to have with Assange. They wouldn't be trying to interview him now if they weren't intending to arrest and charge him.

And he knows it, and his attorney knows it, and probably everyone in Sweden knows it.

[arely staircase]

37. it isn't true that a defendant doesn't get to see the evidence against him until trial

in the US. in fact, the prosecution is not allowed to present any evidence or witnesses at trial that the accused and his/her lawyers have not already had time to examine and question.

[Cleita]

2. Nothing really.

Even the sexual assault charges aren't written in stone but allegations. What he did do is piss off our government because the documents he released were rather embarrassing to us. I don't know how they are going to pin any treason or espionage charges on him though. He's neither a US citizen nor did he sell the documents to an enemy country. All he did was put them up on the internet, much like we post on DU.

[Pharaoh]

4. He actually reported

the news!

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. +1 n/t

[tama]

13. More scoops in very short time

than any journalist of more traditional media establishment can hope or imagine in lifetime.

[treestar]

22. He's not a reporter

There were so many documents, that they were not digested and summarized.

That's why he brought in the NYT, Guardian and other newspapers. They would do the journalism and try to write stories about the raw data.

Wikileaks did nothing of that. They were overwhelmed with the documents they had and did no analysis of them.

[lordsummerisle]

6. If you do a DU search

you'll find a number of threads that go into lots of legal details about this case.

[ananda]

7. Absolutely nothing.

He just made life inconvenient for certain American organizations and
people who want to keep their communications and activities a secret.

[Honeycombe8]

16. Yes. We all know that women lie about molestation and rape, so let's just disregard that totally...

and forget it exists.

[Iggy]

31. Right.. and one of these certain people

is Dianne Feinstein, the wealthiest person in congress.

she jets back and forth between CA and DC in her husband's 60 million dollar private
jet. Harry Reid sometimes bums a ride.

HUGE conflicts of interest going on with Feinstein and her husbands' biz ventures, some of which
are defense related.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. How is this related to Julian Assange?

Did he reveal anything about Dianne Feinstein, her wealth in comparison to other Senators, her husband's private jet, Harry Reid's traveling on the jet, defense-related contracts involving her husband and his biz ventures?

What the connection to Assange?

[Iggy]

41. Here's HOW:

Feinstein formerly chaired the Senate Rules Committee (2007–2009) and has chaired the Select Committee on Intelligence since 2009. She is also the first woman to have presided over a U.S. presidential inauguration.

trouble with connecting the dots here?

I suspect she wants Assange in Leavenworth so bad she can't stand it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

[hack89]

9. He has broken no US laws. Sweden has accused him of sexual crimes. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. You want the details?

Here's the condensed version; First and foremost, he pissed off the U.S., British, and some smaller governments by founding Wikileaks and releasing a lot of evidence of both embarrassing and criminal activities. Then he compounded his sin by releasing secrets of some banks, particularly Bank of America, and of one of their covert dirty trick contractors.

The sexual assault - rape charges stem from his going out & partying with two women who took him home and had sex with him. The next morning he had sex with one or both of them again and a condom either broke or was not used or some combination of the two. The women were rightly pissed at him and wanted to compel him to have tests for STD's. This apparently fits into Sweden's rape laws and the fun really began.

For way more info on the charges than you probably want google "Sofia Wilen Anna Ardin"

[Chorophyll]

14. He allegedly penetrated one of the women while she was asleep and therefore

incapable of consent. That's rape in my book. (Again, he allegedly did this.) And he (allegedly) did this without using a condom. So all in all, it's a pretty dicky thing to (allegedly) do.

I find the guy to be a coward, but that's just my opinion.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. Of course, and republicans won't vote for President Obama because they disagree with his policies.

Are you really that naive , or do you just think everybody else is?

[Chorophyll]

23. What?

Seriously. What are you talking about?

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. That you're trying to contort the facts to justify your position.

That's it's every bit as asinine as pretending that the reason those republicans won't ever vote for him under any circumstances is anything other than because he's black.

[Chorophyll]

35. I'm not trying to contort any facts.

I read about the allegations and I mentioned one of them in my comment. In my opinion, a sexual act without consent is rape.

Here's more (again, of my own opinion.) I'm not a huge fan of Assange. I think he did some good things. But you can do good things and still be a rapist. You can do good things, and have governments going after you, and STILL be a rapist.

I don't know if he's a rapist, but I think it's entirely possible.

Show me where I've twisted the facts.

And I still don't understand what this has to do with Republicans not voting for Obama because he's Black.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. The most important point that you made is the one where you said, "I don't know if he's a rapist".

[pnwmom]

28. That was the sanitized version.

One of the women said he penetrated her while she was sleeping -- which would constitute rape; and that they had argued about condoms earlier and he knew she insisted on one, but he wasn't wearing one when he entered her while she was sleeping.So he not only raped her when she was unconscious, according to her allegations, but he knew that she required a condom and he didn't use one.

I don't remember the other woman's allegations clearly, but she said something about him holding her down with his weight, and forcing her legs apart with his own.

As far as the released files, he didn't just release the Iraq tapes; he released a large quantity of diplomatic emails, unredacted for the names and contact information of vulnerable people. For example, the names of Chinese and other dissidents were unredacted. Even so, there are probably no laws in the US under which he could be prosecuted for this. He did lose the respect of a number of journalists, however, with whom he'd been working on preparing redacted versions of the files which would be less likely to hurt innocent people.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. While they were sleeping together after an all-nighter partying and having sex.

In what world do you expect that specific permission will be obtained before each individual act? Do you suppose that either of these women stopped the event and got specific permission before each act they performed on him that night?

There was no coercion or force. They spent the night fucking and then they fucked some more. Put yourself in the position of that night. You and your friend pick up a celebrity, spend the night partying, taking pics and tweeting to all of your friends that you're going to bag him, you take him to your home where you screw your brains out...

He's definitely an idiot and they are completely justified in wanting to know if he might have passed something on, but c'mon...

Just got this one from another thread:

[pnwmom]

38. In what world should he have NOT penetrated a sleeping woman he barely knew?

And without using the condom he knew she insisted on?

In any part of the CIVILIZED world.

Just because she consented earlier -- but only on the strict condition he use a condom -- didn't give him a free pass to do anything he wanted to her later on, while she was unconscious.


Try googling "acquaintance rape." You need to educate yourself.

From the California Women's Law Center:

http://www.justdatenow.org/dating-abuse-help/rape-resource-page/identifying-acknowleding-rape

8% of men surveyed admitted to an act that would legally be considered rape, but 84% of these men were convinced that the act they committed did not constitute rape. (R. Warsaw, I Never Called it Rape, 1994)

SNIP

Rape is defined differently in every state, but generally any non-consensual or forced intercourse is considered rape. This includes rape by coercion, intimidation, rape based off of an actual or perceived fear or threat, and actual force. If a victim is unable to give consent because they are intoxicated or asleep, that is rape as well.

[petronius]

44. Of course consent should be obtained before every sex act, even within

a particular encounter - in what world should it not? Consent is a continuous, ongoing process - it's not always a question of "May I do X?" every time you move a finger, as you seem to be trying to suggest. Consent can be verbal, it can be implied, but if it's ever in doubt, then everything stops.

Initiating a sex act on a person who is not capable of giving any sort of consent (due to sleep, alcohol, or whatever), especially when consent for that particular act was previously refused, is totally unacceptable, whatever the relationship and no matter what has gone before.

It's perfectly fine to question the motives of Sweden and the UK, or to question the coyness of the US wrt to extradition. It's even OK to wonder if the allegations are true - they haven't been proven, after all. But to suggest that the alleged behavior in and of itself itself is somehow acceptable is utterly beyond the pale...

[LadyHawkAZ]

11. He is being charged with rape

He is being extradited for seriously pissing off the 1%.

[Quantess]

25. No charges yet, remember.

He is wanted for questioning.

[nxylas]

26. Which. for some reason, has to be done in Sweden

Apparently, the Swedish authorities have never heard of Skype. And Assange has said that he would be on the next flight to Stockholm if the Swedish government could assure him that he would not be extradited to the US. But surprise surprise, they refuse to do that.

[AntiFascist]

12. The Obama Admin claims...

that the likelihood of prosecution for crimes related to Wikileaks is receding, which implies that there is still some possibility of prosecution for crimes related to Wikileaks. There also seems to be some disagreement (ahem, Biden?) about whether such crimes should be prosecuted.

[Pharaoh]

15. maybe because

there is an election going on?

Just saying..........

[AntiFascist]

17. Actually...

the statement from the White House was that: because of the upcoming election, and because Assange was raising such a stink, it makes it more difficult to drop the case. Personally, I hope Obama would like to drop it but it is not politically expedient for him to do so.

Remember hope? Never mind!

[Pharaoh]

18. right

[backscatter712]

19. He exposed the dirty laundry of our bankster and government elites.

So they pulled strings in Sweden, where they concocted "rape" charges for incidents involving a broken condom and allegations of having sex with a woman while asleep (after they had sex when wide-awake).

The women themselves in this incident do not call it rape, they are not cooperating with the prosecutors (who have links to Karl Rove), and the only thing they were worried about was asking Assange to have an STD test just in case he passed anything to them.

The Swedish prosecutor originally put on the case interviewed Assange, came to the conclusion there was no evidence, dismissed the case, until he was overridden from VEEEEERY high up, and the case was reinstated. Yes, it's fucking fishy.

It's horseshit, pure and simple - a politically motivated railroad job. But assert this opinion, and a small number of very loud people with a large number of accounts here on DU will descend on you and call you a misogynistic rape-loving woman-hater, just like they did to two women here who were brave enough to tell us about how they themselves were raped, but also question the UK's, Sweden's and the US's persecution of Assange.

[WillyT]

20. To Answer Your Last Part... He Did Nothing, When Compared To Cheney/Bush, et. al.

Who still walk free.

[aliabbas621]

29. Spam deleted by Violet_Crumble (MIR Team)

[graham4anything]

30. rape is rape

I do not consider him a hero by any means

and he himself has made himself a big superstar name with his blatherings on this or that

remember- if we can't believe the media, then why do we believe the positive stories on him in the same media we cannot trust, and why believe his spin???

Why do people pick and choose and think those stories they agree with are ok, yet everything else isn't

I remember Daniel Ellsberg, however, this guy is NOT Daniel Ellsberg. Far from it.Nor is it 40 plus years ago

but with his ego, he thinks he is.

and rape is rape.
and leaks are leaks.

I mean are people so infatuated with his blonde hair that rape is rape except if he is charged with it?

[girl gone mad]

42. and lies are lies and corruption is corruption..

and war crimes are war crimes and right wing shills are right wing shills.

any other brilliant insights?

[graham4anything]

43. so, I guess you consider Akin a hero too?(not saying you do, but...

your angst fits right in with Akin's thinking on women.(guess they may as well go to hell )

these conspiracy theories are so tiresome.
way too many spy movies.

I find no difference between this dude and that what's his dead name? Brietbart? or drudge for that matter.

and one wonders why the media is garbage these days and has been since people like this took down Dan Rather.

one always has to side with a person when they say they are raped, otherwise, not one cry of rape will ever be listened to.

same as one needs to look at all evidence old and new when one is on death row, so as not to have one innocent person killed wrongly.

[graham4anything]

47. Assange is also a bully

in his dealings with everybody

bully and rape are similiar, in that both is abuse and both can kill, and both can drive people into depressions that they never recover from or cost tens of thousands in hospital bills

and there should be big penalties for those that do.

Next someone will be defending the killers of Matthew Shepard or James Byrd Jr or Rodney King or Mitt Romney during his college days when he attacked bully style.

and again, innocent people don't run, and hide and ask for asylum. Just adds to the roster of crimes, which if innocent, means now they have a crime they committed running away from the police or authority or judgements.

[Cleita]

45. Is there a website or organization out there that lists all of your talking points?

Because it seems many people are swarming this website and saying exactly the same thing although the wording is sometimes different. The problem is that none of the rape allegations can be proved with actual facts yet. There is no proof of rape and yet you are saying it as if it were gospel truth.

Other than than most of us know Assange is a narcissistic person. We don't need to be told.

[graham4anything]

46. I write- not follow, then quickly see many then copy my words.

Actually, though, when it comes to the cry of rape, a human being should always take the side of those that are NOT charged with the crime.

99.999999999999999999999% of the time, it is a true fact.
every so often it isn't, but to deny the charges for whatever reason means Akin wins and no person will ever be believed when charging rape.

An innocent person never runs before a trial, I have found to be another truth over the years.

Now, after a judge rules, or perhaps if some deal was broken a person runs, that is/might be another story

but until the trial, either by jury or judge, I will stick with NOT backing (why the love for this guy? Is he cute???) the perhaps perp.

and again, I put this guy alongside Drudge and Breitbart, two rightwing extremists-and unless proven otherwise, I myself do not find him to be hero worthy.

WE ARE NOT WATCHING BOYS FROM BRAZIL, or V THE MOVIE with the legendary Hugo Weaving in a situation having nothing to do with this subject.


btw, the accusations of my posts, remind me of Bush41's attack gangs, that have been used after that by Bush43's attack gangs, and Herr Mitten's current attack gangs.
Just sayin' you know.

rememeber to keep your eye on the prize, everything else is trivial, because if Mittens wins
look what his side does (for example with the navy seal who they outed, and how they outed Valerie, etc.)