Why do so many headlines say Julian Assange "Arrested"

[Capitalocracy]

when he turned himself in?

Isn't that wording a little too creative?

[xultar]

1. He did get arrested after he turned himself in. ROFL

[elleng]

2. Thought so myself, but its easier than facts: Taken into custody.

[xultar]

3. Arrested is part of the procedure. You can be takin into custody and not be arrested.

You have to be under arrest to be offered bail.

Taken into custody does not deprive you of your freedom or liberty.

Arrest and custody are very different

[HEyHEY]

5. Stop properly understanding the legal system, you! We're TRYING to be outraged here!

[xultar]

7. Not trying to ruin the outrage...well not really. Teeheehee

[sabrina 1]

8. No, we're trying to be accurate. Yesterday, people here on DU

were accusing him of being a hypocrite, of hiding from the police, refusing to answer to the phony charges against him. Those people were claiming he was willing to expose others, but not himself.

They were proven wrong because no one had to go find him, he went voluntarily to confront the false charges. AFTER which he was arrested, which he clearly knew would happen.

To say he was arrested in a headline gives the impression that the police had to go find him, that he was unwilling to face the charges.

This is why the American people are so misinformed. The media has little interest in accurately reporting on issues like this. In fact it is their goal to create wrong impressions.

[xultar]

10. How do you know they are false charges? Look up arrested in the dictionary FFS!

[sabrina 1]

38. How do I know? Because I have followed this case since the

beginning. I have seen the tweets from Ann Ardin the day after she now claims to have been 'raped'. Not to mention her own statement that she was NOT. And I know a little about the lawyer in Sweden who inserted himself into the case and claims that a 'victim doesn't get to decide whether or not she was raped, the Government does'.

There is plenty of evidence online already that proves there never was a case. The lead prosecutor threw the case out. These 'new' charges have never been mentioned before, not by the women and it's for sure that a very respected prosecutor in Sweden would not throw out a case if those charges were a part of it.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the political connections of the woman Ann Ardin, or her own personal problems and her attempts to erase her online communications wherein she was nothing but thrilled about her time spent with Assange, AFTER the night in question. That is until apparently a reason to 'get revenge' presented itself, and other political elements entered the case.

In a fair trial, this case would probably be thrown out of court. But he will not get a fair trial because this 'case' is not about sexual abuse, it is about silencing an award-winning journalist.

[HEyHEY]

11. Being "arrested" is what happens when you turn yourself in.

It's no one's fault but the American people's if they don't know what a word means. Also, the orignal story said he was "going to meet police".. so "arrested" actually makes sense.

[sabrina 1]

25. Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

Or are you just missing the point?

Being arrested can happen several different ways. You can do as he did, have the courage not to run away, and turn yourself in.

Or, you can be a coward, run away, become a fugitive until they find you and arrest you.

Julian Assange, contrary to what some people accused him of yesterday, and I have yet to see any of them admit to being wrong, did not run away.

A correct headline would have noted the circumstances under which he was arrested.

"Julian Assange turns himself in to police and was arrested"

You can be sure if they had to go out and find him, the headlines would have noted the circumstances.

"Julian Assange on the run from police, has been tracked down and arrested".

It is clear from the way some of the headlines are written that a certain impression is being created, a false impression.

Btw, did you join those who claimed he was a hypocrite for not going to the police, even though all along his lawyers had made him available to talk to them? Just curious, feel free not to answer if you wish.

[snagglepuss]

30. Christians ought to praise god that Amerikan MSM wasn't reporting events

in Jerusleum 2010 years ago.

[sabrina 1]

41. Yes, Jesus would be a terrorist. But in the end, Assange

will remain a hero. The people of the world have had a good look at their governments now, through the leaked documents, and any doubt that most of them are corrupt, lapdogs of the U.S. should be removed.

What Assange has revealed that is the most important revelation of all, is how much control the U.S. exerts over its acolyte governments in Europe. Europe, which used to maintain some independence and sovereignty. I imagine it's a shock to many citizens of European countries to see to what extent their leaders have sold them out to the U.S. and its forever wars.

The U.S. used to operate in South America that way, but they are emerging from U.S. influence, and now it seems, we have our puppets in Europe. That I hope will result in an electoral revolution in those countries.

[TorchTheWitch]

33. if he was willing to face the charges he wouldn't have to be extradited

The very fact that extradition procedures became necessary and even at this point he's STILL fighting it makes it about as plain as can be that he's not willing to face the charges. If he was willing to face the charges, he would have just gone back to Sweden and faced themwhen he was requested to. He didn't and he is STILL fighting it. Yes, he's a hypocrite in trying to make anyone believe that he's always been interested in talking to Swedish authorities and given the opportunity to clear his name because he's done and is still doing just the opposite. Claiming at this late date that he's voluntarily willling to face the charges because he turned himself in instead of making the police go get him is fucking laughable. The only reason he voluntarily went to the British police is because he found out that their coming to get him to arrest him was iminent.

[sabrina 1]

40. You haven't been following this case, have you?

His lawyers have offered, over and over again, to have him meet with Swedish prosecutors but those offers have been turned down. Over time, it has become apparent that this case is no longer about sexual issues, that the U.S. wants him and Sweden after first throwing out the charges, brought in some new people to reinstate them and add to them, charges that were not there in the first place.

He is absolutely right not to return to Sweden now. It is a trap, this whole 'sex trial', in order to get him there and from there to the U.S. where there is good reason to believe he will be subject to torture and eventually disappeared either on trumped up ridiculous charges like espionage, or he will simply 'die in custody' like so many others. And those tortured to death victims of our government are the people Wikileaks was there for, to expose the criminals who murder and torture and disappear people in countries around the world, as they exposed the torturers and murderers in Kenya.

Wikileaks is an award-winning news organization and despite exposing the bad guys in other countries, were never subjected to the persecution they are now the victims of since they exposed the lies about the Bush wars.

He is a very brave man. Do you think he did not know that he would be smeared, persecuted even jailed by this Totalitarian government, maybe even assassinated? It's not like we don't have a record of disappearing people, including journalists in Iraq eg. You DO remember the bombing of Al Jazeera don't you?

He is not a stupid fool. It's clear to the whole world that the Swedish charges are bogus and simply the bait to get him into the hands of the U.S.

Every human rights organization around the world is supporting him, and since this is a country that tortures and kills detainees, I hope there will be world-wide condemnation of any country that even thinks of handing him over to the U.S. It should be considered 'extraordinary rendition' which is still going on and for which those responsible should be tried at the Hague.

We are persecuting an award-winning news organization, censoring and threatening it. I never thought I would see the day when, under a Democratic Administration this country would sink so low.

The Soviet Union would be envious.

[SidDithers]

44. LOL!...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[Capitalocracy]

14. So what about the word "detained"?

And I believe journalists and editors who write headlines understand the connotation they create with their wording.

[HEyHEY]

15. "Deatained" often means without charges for question or sobering up

The story leading into the meeting with police was "Assange will meet with police" not "Assange will turn himself in" so, even though Xultar is correct anyway, he's even more correct because at no time did it say he was "turning himself in for arrest" or something. At least not in the stories I read.

[jberryhill]

46. That is the definition of "arrested" /nt

[hlthe2b]

4. Why do so many say that he is accused/charged with "rape"

When even the "victims" acknowledge it was consensual sex and that their issue is with his refusal to be tested for STDs afterwards when the condom broke or he failed to wear one. ???

[xultar]

6. DUH it is another country's legal system they define rape differently..WTF people

He is under arrest in the UK for shit he did in Sweden.

quit thinking in USs terms. we don't define the legal shit for the world.

[hlthe2b]

9. Because it is US newspapers doing so...

and failing to make that clear, to define the differences. That is irresponsible and really lousy "journalism", xultar. The fact is is that he would not be guilty of rape in this country under the same circumstances. That IS relevent, no matter how you cut it, xultar.

[xultar]

12. He is being sought for rape. Rape is rape. It isn't their fault that people in the us are stupid.

[hlthe2b]

18. that is ridiculous. and you know that.

Obviously "rape is not rape"... as the definition of rape in Sweden would NOT be considered rape in this country.

[xultar]

24. But it is rape in their country. Whatever rape is here it is rape. Whatever rape is there it is rape

Thus rape is rape

[hlthe2b]

27. which should be reported along with the distinctions.

I don't know what part of that you have disagreements with, but it is just basic journalism practice.

[xultar]

29. That's not I'm arguing.

[snagglepuss]

35. self-delete

[TorchTheWitch]

34. It damn well should be

And I have personally experienced more than once why it should be. The US is woefully lacking in how it defines and prosecutes the crime of rape.

[hlthe2b]

36. What should be?

Consensual sex? Please see my other post response to yours, TTW.

As a female who is likewise very concerned about issues of sexual assault/rape, I need to stress that I think you are under a false perception of what happened--at least to the extent any facts have come out. If it turned out those details were wrong, I would be the first to agree with you and be calling for his being charged. Newsweek has been doing some more detailed reporting; perhaps I'll try to find you some links tomorrow. Good night, in the meantime. I do understand.

[tkmorris]

Is that attitude strictly necessary?

It's fine to disagree with people but do you have to be so rude about it? Conversation here could be so much more civil if we'd all just make a little effort.

[xultar]

26. Really? I'm being more sarcastic than rude. But if you feel I'm not being civil alert on me.

I gotta stop coming here. People can't take jokes anymore.

[Art_from_Ark]

28. I call bullshit

He is under arrest for doing what thousands of other men have done in Sweden without repercussion. He was allowed to leave the country because the prosecutor know the charges were bullshit.

[HEyHEY]

13. I've seen them mostly refered to as "Sex charges" lately

[xultar]

16. Mostly cuz we are stupid, they prolly have to.

[hlthe2b]

19. as they should... n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

31. because that's not the issue

The issue is sex that started out as consensual but became non-consensual. Just because you don't FEEL like you've been raped doesn't mean that according to the law you haven't been. I didn't FEEL like I was raped either. Technically I was given that fact that stipulations as to how the sex would commence were not only ignored but so were my pleas to stop. And in my case it happened more than once with more than one guy. In the last case the shithead jumped me while I was asleep. Granted, we'd had sex once a couple months before but I never gave any consent to sex with him then and had never planned to ever again. The only reason I was even present at all was because being the nice person that I am I wouldn't allow him to drive his motorcycle home when he was so drunk he was swaying and slurring and could barely stand up. By the time I got the asshole home, dragged his passed out cold ass into his house and dumped it on his living room floor I had already been awake for over 24 hours and couldn't face driving an hour and a half home when I could no longer keep my eyes open. So, seeing as he was dead to the world on the floor, I hit the sofa fully clothed for a nap so I could drive home without killing myself and anyone else that might be sharing the road with me. I woke up hours later finding that he had removed my pants while I slept and was just finishing having unprotected unconsented sex with me.

Yet after all this I didn't feel raped and never considered going to the police in any of the situations. By anyone's standards including my own I was raped but still have a hard time convincing myself of that. Probably because I don't WANT to feel like I was raped. With each of the instances I was angry as hell and to this day would like to take a baseball bat to the gonads of each of them. Yet even now I still wouldn't go to the police over it. I'm not so stupid to imagine they'd give a shit. This is the kind of culture we live in, and no wonder these guys don't think they did anything wrong. If you're ever going to be raped make sure the guy is a total stranger and you have a lot of bruises and bleeding to show for it or nothing is going to happen to them.

And here we are on DU on all places with so many people falling all over themselves to defend a guy they don't even know nor even met before in utter disbelief that there is even the slightest of possibilities that he may be guilty. And all because they like what he does with Wikileaks.

I've said it before many many times and I'll say it again: I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. The only people that are really ever going to know that are him and the two women who made the allegations. Nobody who wasn't there to see it will ever know if he's innocent or guilty because there isn't any other WAY to know.

[hlthe2b]

32. I understand and agree with that TTW, but this is not that situation

Hopefully more of the facts will come out, but what is reported now (and not seemingly at issue) is that both women do agree that it was consensual--not a "started consensual" and then a refusal to stop when they changed their mind scenario.

It has also been reported that the Swedes are NOT accusing him or rape, that indeed they do not define this as rape any more than US law does, but rather a charge of sexual misconduct. At issue appears to be a request, after the fact, that he be tested for STDS.

[Life Long Dem]

17. It's a smear job by the media.

And governments around the world are after him for anything they can find. Even if he is innocent he needs to go through the judicial process. Bogus charges or not.

[HipChick]

20. I wonder why the women were after him to get a STD test

what does he have?

[EFerrari]

22. A target on his back? If they were worried

wouldn't it be safer to go get tested themselves?

[snagglepuss]

37. "A target on his back?" LOLOLOL

Touche.

[Life Long Dem]

42. He probably doesn't have anything.

Like I said it's probably bullshit charges.

[HEyHEY]

23. The media LOVES guys like Assange. He gives them headlines and newstips

They may be acting wreckless to gain more attention, but I think more media outlets support than oppose him.

[Greyhound]

21. You sound surprised.

The Authoritarians and their faithful lapdogs are, if nothing else, completely consistent.
:kick: & R

[AtomicKitten]

39. Embellishment for dramatic effect is the cornerstone of crap journalism. nt

[Edweird]

43. My guess, for what it's worth, is because he was arrested.

[pipoman]

45. In the US, involuntary

detention by police is arrest. He may have voluntarily turned himself in, he cannot leave, therefore involuntary detention.