UK on the verge of committing an act of war...

Post Reply New Topic

The only definition of the specific single word 'rape' is forced sexual intercourse as far as I know(and that was my meaning). I am aware there are other things like statutory rape but that is 'statutory rape' as one phrase so of course it will have a different definition then the plain word rape as it is a different term. If the article meant something other than sexual assult and rape allegations like it said I guess I misunderstood.

Agreed the Swedes should interview him in the Embassy.
It's not like he is going anywhere.

You are nearly as awesome as Iron Maiden. Standing head and shoulders over small men who think being open to changing your mind is the same as being weak.

Why? just because the guy thinks he's a freaking king or dictator or something doesn't mean the rest of the world should treat him as such. hes the one who's committed crimes or has been accused of it so why he acts as though hes got the right to run the show is beyond me. I can only assume he's trying to soak up as much attention as he can before he eventually is put in prison and forgotten about for the most part.

I mean what is his point even........if he even gave a damn about 'freedom of the press' why is he hiding at the embassy of a country that apparently does not have a very good record of promoting press freedom? Something odd seems to be going on here.

I have no idea what that means and I kind of get the feeling maybe I don't want to know what it means either.

I'm not sure if it's classic rape. That will depend if they claim they withdrew consent. I havent read that. From accounts Ive read it's clear that the first woman had a bad experience with him the first night. She was hosting him in Sweden and continued to let him stay for the week but rebuffed his further efforts, told others it was the worst sex of her life, that he was kind of sexually violent and that she couldnt get him to leave. At some pont she slept on the floor and for at least one night slept with a friend somewhere else. She says he didnt want to use a condom and she felt that he intentionally tore the condom.

During that week he picked up woman number two, a friend of the first. Both were friends with the guy who coordinates Wikileaks in Sweden (who has since defended both women and says they are not CIA agents). That woman claims a consenual relationship but that she woke up with Assange having unsafe sex with her. She wasnt happy about it and later got herself tested. When she contacted him to get tested he refused.

I think they intially went to the police to see if they could force him to get tested. But I'm not 100% on that. There is also language describing Assange groping and pushing woman #1 for sex throughout the week. If she's withdrawn consent she can probably make a deal out of that. If you don't have consent to grope a woman then it's no different than grinding on a total stranger. That this was discussed by the Swedish extradition team makes me think it's important.

The one thing I'm confident of is that Assange did not leave a good impression. I'm also confident that Sweden doesnt need to negotiate the terms of an arrest warrant with a suspect.

That's not Sweden's version of events. Ive read that they told him that he was looking at three charges (coersion, lesser rape and something else). There is a reason he didnt want to go back. They also outlined three potential charges in the extradition hearing.

US law, international law, whatever other law only applies when they want it to apply.

Anyone that doesn't think this whole process is political in nature is fooling themselves. Sweden and UK are just upholding their laws... Against a man that hasn't even been charged with a crime let alone convicted of one.

Roman Polanski is a convicted rapist and has been frolicking all over Europe for over 30 years. Difference is Polanski makes movies and buddies up to powerful people while Assange exposed state secrets.(not even particularly interesting ones)

Well, it's difficult with this case when we're only able to see what the media feeds us and I kind-of suspect they're more likely to drop any term like "statutory" or some other equivalent Swedish technicality in order to report this whole thing as a more sensational "rape" (conventional meaning). Or, there is an understanding through consulting their own lawyers that this is not "rape" in the conventional sense - even the erstwhile BBC now tends to report it as "sexual assault allegations" instead of "rape", as it originally did.
Not meaning in any way to cast doubt or an opinion on what the women experienced - more like an opinion on the reliability and detail of what's being reported.

If it is her word against his, then that is a judgement to be made by the Swedish Court. Not some politically motivated bystanders who have not had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, evaluate their credibility and weigh their testimony.

As for the word, "rape," it is being misused. The word, in Common Law, has a very narrow and specific meaning, requiring genital penetration (even genital oral or genital anal penetration does not constitute "rape" at Common Law). Jusrisdictions have responded to this in one of two ways. The first is to broaden the definition of rape by statute. When a statute says that some set of behaviours constitute rape, then those behaviours are "statutory rape," because they are rape as it is defined in a statute. On the other hand, some jurisdictions have chosen to abandon rape altogether and define offenses such as "sexual assault." Assange is not, and never has been wanted on a charge of "rape," because no such charge exists in Swedish Law, so far as I am aware. To compare his behaviour to the common law definition of rape is meaningless.

(q.f. Cornflake's very sensible post.)



Did you read the New Statesman article?

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david ... xtradition

This isn't a "come down to the police station for a chat" kind of questioning. This is a judicial process in which the Court, the prosecution and the defendant must all be present. And Swedish Courts do not have the capacity to sit in Ecuadorean embassies. Just recall how much legislation was required to let Scottish courts sit in the Netherlands for the prosecution of the Lockerbie bombing.

Yes, exactly. Whatever the original circumstances were and why they were changed, there is now a case made against Assange and due process must therefore follow.

Just a complement.

In the article there is mentioned the accusers refusal to have a video conference does that mean if she just said they could do it in London?

I sure that everything is being done legally that does not mean it is not being done for political reasons.

I don't think that they could, because he would not be within the jurisdiction of the court, and it would be, effectively a proceeding in absentia. I'm not even sure that a Scottish court can exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction within England, let alone a truly foreign court. If there was a legal mechanism whereby he would attorn himself to the jurisdiction of the foreign court, that might be a different matter. But in order for that jurisdiction to be enforcable against him, I suspect that that would require Parliament to create enabling legislation for the Swedish Court to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction within England.

That is why I initially mentioned that its disappointing there is no real way to know exactly whats true or not other then what the media says. And based on what I've gathered from that regardless of if the sexual assualt or rape allegations were true the whole thing still seems pretty ridiculous and does not make much sense at all.

It doesnt really solve anything by questioning him at the embassy.. If they press charges, which they appear likely to do, he'd still have to go to Sweden. They can't set up a police station, courtroom and prison for him in the UK. And I don't see why they need to.

There was some offer of video conferencing made by the Swedish court or she would have nothing to refuse.