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

Page 4 of 6 [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

20 Aug 2012, 1:03 pm

it is still her word against his… sorry.

no judge in this world is able to judge this… since no proof can be given. ever.

it is insane that sweden and the UK are making complete fools of them selves over this.

this is one of the most ridiculous cases in the world.

move on. nothing to see here.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

20 Aug 2012, 1:15 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
I don't like the way people are dismissing the rape allegations as unimportant, though.

Sweden should interview him in the embassy, if it is possible. Though I believe they need to arrest him first, and I'm not sure if that requires him to be on Swedish soil. The way it works in Sweden is that they can't charge him until he is interviewed and arrested.
IIRC, while he was in Sweden he was pulled in for questioning but no charges were made, so the case was dropped and he was allowed to leave.


Then why does Sweden want to question him further if they totally dropped the case and he was free to go?


My guess is that someone conducting the investigation screwed up somewhere, but I don't know.

I doubt it's because of US influence. There are several barriers to immediate extradition to the US. Firstly, Sweden is bound by the ECHR to not extradite when there is a possibility of the death penalty or torture. I know that this is ignored in practice, though.
Secondly, Sweden's special extradition treaty with the US states that it can't extradite to the US for political or military crimes.
Thirdly, I'm not sure what grounds the US have for requesting extradition. You can't try him for treason - espionage, maybe. However, if they were going to do it, they would have done so in the UK, where these are less barriers to extradition. Basically, if the US want someone extradited, the UK do it unquestioningly. Sweden slightly less so (but they have done it in the past, just not as much).
Fourthly, correct me if I'm wrong, but before Assange can be extradited for anything connected to Wikileaks, doesn't Manning need to be put on trial and found guilty?
Finally, if the US do make a request for extradition, the request that Sweden made takes precedent, since they made the request first. He would need to be tried for rape in Sweden before the US could do anything. I know that doesn't change his situation ultimately, but it slows things down.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Last edited by puddingmouse on 20 Aug 2012, 1:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Aug 2012, 1:17 pm

visagrunt wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
The rape definition used in Sweden to charge Assange would not be criminal in the U.S.
He had sex with women without using a condom and lying about being monogamous.
This is bad behavior but he is not even being accused of what we in the U.S. calls rape.


I am reasonably certain that fraudulently obtaining the consent of a person to sexual intercourse is a crime in all jurisdictions in the United States. Just as a refresher, the definition of fraud is: 1) uttering a statement that declarant knows or ought properly to know is false; 2) realiance by another party upon that false statement; and 3) harm to the other party as a result of that reliance. It is alleged that he lied about his monogamy; that a woman relied upon that lie and that she consented to sexual intercourse as a result of that reliance. That's a textbook case of fraud.

I am also reasonably certain that persisting in sexual intercourse after the conditions under which consent was obtained have ceased to exist also constitutes a crime in all jurisdictions in the United States. If a woman says, "only with a condom," that means the man must wear a condom, and must stop at the point that this ceases to be the case.

de minimimus non curat lex is not a defence in criminal matters.


I think you may be assuming U.S. law is as rational and enlightened as Canadian law.
[insert serious face here]
There are only rape by fraud laws in California and Tennessee.
If Your Neighbor Poses as Your Husband, Is it Rape?

Rape 'by Deception' May Become A Crime In Massachusetts
Rape 'by Deception' May Become A Crime In Massachusetts

It is the freaking wild west down here.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Last edited by JakobVirgil on 20 Aug 2012, 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

20 Aug 2012, 1:17 pm

aspi-rant wrote:
it is still her word against his… sorry.

no judge in this world is able to judge this… since no proof can be given. ever.

it is insane that sweden and the UK are making complete fools of them selves over this.

this is one of the most ridiculous cases in the world.

move on. nothing to see here.


The lack of proof thing is true for most rape cases, but that doesn't make them ridiculous. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict, due process needs to be followed.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

20 Aug 2012, 1:26 pm

Cornflake wrote:
I mention statutory rape only in response to your statement "I am pretty sure there is only one definition of the word rape". There is not, and that is true for Sweden too. So when they say "rape", they don't necessarily mean it in the sense that we commonly understand it - in the same way that "statutory rape" doesn't convey that meaning either.


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.


_________________
We won't go back.


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Aug 2012, 1:28 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
it is still her word against his… sorry.

no judge in this world is able to judge this… since no proof can be given. ever.

it is insane that sweden and the UK are making complete fools of them selves over this.

this is one of the most ridiculous cases in the world.

move on. nothing to see here.


The lack of proof thing is true for most rape cases, but that doesn't make them ridiculous. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict, due process needs to be followed.


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


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Aug 2012, 1:30 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
I mention statutory rape only in response to your statement "I am pretty sure there is only one definition of the word rape". There is not, and that is true for Sweden too. So when they say "rape", they don't necessarily mean it in the sense that we commonly understand it - in the same way that "statutory rape" doesn't convey that meaning either.


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.


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.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

20 Aug 2012, 1:33 pm

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


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.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

20 Aug 2012, 1:37 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

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.


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.


_________________
We won't go back.


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

20 Aug 2012, 1:57 pm

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. :lol: I'm also confident that Sweden doesnt need to negotiate the terms of an arrest warrant with a suspect.

Quote:
Then why does Sweden want to question him further if they totally dropped the case and he was free to go?


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.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

20 Aug 2012, 2:49 pm

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)



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

20 Aug 2012, 2:54 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
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.
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.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Aug 2012, 2:55 pm

aspi-rant wrote:
it is still her word against his… sorry.

no judge in this world is able to judge this… since no proof can be given. ever.

it is insane that sweden and the UK are making complete fools of them selves over this.

this is one of the most ridiculous cases in the world.

move on. nothing to see here.


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.)

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


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.


_________________
--James


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

20 Aug 2012, 2:58 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
The lack of proof thing is true for most rape cases, but that doesn't make them ridiculous. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict, due process needs to be followed.
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.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Aug 2012, 3:01 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

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.


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.


Just a complement.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Aug 2012, 3:10 pm

visagrunt wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
it is still her word against his… sorry.

no judge in this world is able to judge this… since no proof can be given. ever.

it is insane that sweden and the UK are making complete fools of them selves over this.

this is one of the most ridiculous cases in the world.

move on. nothing to see here.


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.)

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


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.


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.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/